Bangalore District Court
S. Puttamuddegowda vs Ammayi on 4 April, 2026
SCCH-2 1 C.C.No. 4736/2023
KABC020162662023
IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES AND ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY (SCCH-2).
C.C.No. 4736/2023
:: Present ::
Sri. H.P. Mohan Kumar, B.Sc.,LL.B.,
6th Addl. Judge, Court of Small
Causes and ACJM, Bengaluru.
Dated: On this the 4th day of April, 2026.
Complainant : Sri. S Puttamuddegowda
S/o late Lingaiah,
Aged about 65 years,
R/at: No.14, Behind P.E.S College,
Disoja layout, Banashankari 3rd stage,
Bengaluru 560085.
(By Sri. B P Shobha, Advocate)
- Vs. -
Accused : Smt. Ammayi
W/o late Kumar,
Aged about 48 years,
R/at: No.6, Opp. to Kino Theater,
SCCH-2 2 C.C.No. 4736/2023
V V Giri Kalony, Sheshadripuram,
Bengaluru 560020.
Office address:
Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike
No.94(A)/03,
Sahayaka Karya Nirvahaki,
Gandhi nagara division,
Tulasi thota, Bengaluru 560053.
(By Sri. V S Ravindra Holla, Advocate)
:: J U D G M E N T :
:
The complainant has filed the present complaint
U/Sec.200 of Cr.P.C., alleging that the accused has
committed the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act (herein after referred as N.I.Act).
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows:-
The complainant and accused are well known to each
other since twenty years as both of them were working in
BBMP. Based on the said acquaintance, during the month of
October 2019 the accused has approached the complainant
for financial assistance of Rs.5,00,000/- and agreed to pay
interest at the rate of 2.5% p.m. and assured to return the
same after three years. As per the request of the accused,
the complainant has paid Rs.5,00,000/- to the accused by
way of cash on 18.11.2019. At which point of time, the
SCCH-2 3 C.C.No. 4736/2023accused has issued cheque bearing No. 757105 dated
13.04.2023 for Rs.3,00,000/- and another cheque bearing
No. 757106 dated 18.04.2023 for Rs.2,00,000/- which were
drawn on Karnataka Bank, Neharunagara branch,
Bengaluru. Even after repeated requests and demands made
by the complainant also, the accused postponed the payment
due to the reason of Covid-19. Without any other
alternative, the complainant has presented the said cheques
for encashment through his banker State Bank of India,
Hosakerehalli branch on 13.04.2023 and 18.04.2023
respectively. However, the said cheques were dishonored and
returned unpaid with an endorsement as “Funds
Insufficient” on 19.04.2023. Thereafter, the complainant
has issued the legal notice to the accused on 06.05.2023
which was served to the accused. In spite of service of notice
also, the accused has neither paid the amount nor sent
reply. Hence, cause of action arose to file the complaint.
3. The cognizance was taken for the offence punishable
U/Sec.138 of N.I.Act. After filing of the complaint, the sworn
statement of the complainant was recorded and it prima-
facie found that the accused committed the offence
punishable U/Sec.138 of N.I.Act. Hence, criminal case was
registered and the summons was issued to the accused.
SCCH-2 4 C.C.No. 4736/2023
4. In response to the summons, the accused appeared
through her counsel and thereafter plea was recorded. The
accused was denied the accusation leveled against her,
claimed to be tried and stated that she has defence to make.
Further, the statement of the accused as contemplated
U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded. The accused has denied
the incriminating evidence appeared against her in the
evidence of complainant and submitted that she has defence
evidence.
5. The Hon’ble Apex Court of India in Indian Bank
Association and Others vs Union Bank of India and
Another reported in AIR 2014 SC 2528, held that “Sworn
Statement of the complainant has to be treated as
examination in chief”. In the instant case, the complainant
got examined himself as P.W.1 and the documents have been
marked at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9, Ex.P7(a), Ex.P7(b), Ex.P8(a).
Thereafter, P.W.1 was subject to the process of cross-
examination from the side of accused. It is pertinent to note
that, Ex.D1 got marked during the course of cross-
examination of PW.1 by way of confrontation. Per contra, the
accused got examined herself as D.W.1 and the documents
have been marked at Ex.D2 to Ex.D4. Thereafter, D.W.1 was
subject to the process of cross-examination from the side of
complainant. It is pertinent to note that, Ex.P10 and
Ex.P10(a) got marked by way of confrontation during the
SCCH-2 5 C.C.No. 4736/2023
course of cross-examination of DW.1. Further, the accused
has also examined one witness as DW.2 and he was cross
examined from the side of complainant.
6. Heard arguments from both sides. The learned counsel
for complainant and counsel for accused have filed written
arguments. Perused the materials available on record.
7. Now the points that arise for consideration of this
Court are as hereunder:
1. Whether the complainant has
proved that the accused has
committed the offence
punishable U/Sec.138 of
N.I.Act?
2. What Order?
8. The findings of this Court to the above-referred points
are as follows:
Point No.1: In the Negative.
Point No.2: As per final order,
for the following:-
REASONS
9. POINT No.1: In order to prove the case, complainant
examined himself as PW.1 by filing affidavit in support of his
oral examination-in-chief. In the affidavit, PW.1 has
SCCH-2 6 C.C.No. 4736/2023
reiterated the complaint averments in verbatim. Hence, this
Court need not to recapitulate the same once again at this
juncture. In support of his oral testimony, PW.1 got marked
the documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9, Ex.P7(a), Ex.P7(b),
Ex.P8(a) . It is further pertinent to note that, Ex.P10 and
Ex.P10(a) got marked by way of confrontation during the
course of cross-examination of DW.1. Per contra, the
accused got examined herself as D.W.1 and the documents
have been marked at Ex.D2 to Ex.D4. It is pertinent to note
that, Ex.D1 got marked during the course of cross-
examination of PW.1 by way of confrontation. Further, the
accused has also examined one witness as DW.2 and he was
cross examined from the side of complainant.
10. Now itself it is appropriate to see the documents
marked at Ex.P-Series and Ex.D-Series.
Ex.P-Series.
Ex.P.1 and Ex.P2 are the cheques in question. Ex.P.1(a) &
Ex.P.2(a) are the signatures of accused. Ex.P.3 & Ex.P.4 are
the bank challans. Ex.P5 & Ex.P6 are the bank
endorsements dated 15.04.2023 and 19.04.2023
respectively. Ex.P.7 is the office copy of the legal notice
dated: 06.05.2023. Ex.P.7(a) & Ex.P7(b) are the postal
receipts. Ex.P8 is the returned postal cover. Ex.P8(a) is the
returned notice. Ex.P.9 is the acknowledgment due card.
SCCH-2 7 C.C.No. 4736/2023
Ex.P10 is the hand loan agreement dated 18.11.2019 and
Ex.P10(a) is the signature of accused.
Ex.D-Series.
Ex.D1 is the bank account statement pertaining to the
accused. Ex.D2 & Ex.D3 are the transfer certificates
pertaining to Nandini K and Prema K. Ex.D4 is the marriage
invitation card pertaining to K Nandini.
11. The learned counsel for accused has relied on the
following decisions:
i) AIR 1971 SC 1865 between Sait
Tarajee Khimchand and others Vs.
Yelamarti Satyam @ Satteyya.
ii) Criminal Appeal No. 893/2007
between L.I.C of India and another Vs.
Ram Pal Singh Bisen.
iii) AIR 2003 SC 4548 between R.V.E
Venkatachala Gounder Vs. Arulmigu
Viswesaraswami & V. P. Temple and
another.
iv) Appeal (Crl) No. 1255-1261/2004
between D Vinod Shivappa Vs. Nanda
Belliappa.
SCCH-2 8 C.C.No. 4736/2023
v) Criminal Appeal No. 2021/2008
between M/s. Harman Electronics (P) Ltd
and another Vs. M/s. National Panasonic
India Ltd.,
vi) Appeal (Crl) No. 1015/1999 between
K Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan
Balan and another.
vii) Criminal Appeal No. 2402/2014
between K Subramani Vs. K Damodara
Naidu.
viii) 2001 104 CC 348 between B P
Venkatesulu Vs. K P Mani Nayar.
ix) Criminal Appeal No. 3257/2024
between Sri Dattatraya Vs. Sharanappa.
This court has carefully gone through the decisions relied
by the counsel for accused and applied the principles to the
case on hand.
12. Before going to discuss the main aspect, it is worth to
reproduce the provisions of Sec.138 and 139 of N.I.Act, the
same as hereunder:
138. Dishonour of cheque for
insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account: –
SCCH-2 9 C.C.No. 4736/2023
Where any cheque drawn by a
person on an account maintained by
him with a banker for payment of
any amount of money to another
person from out of that account for
the discharge, in whole or in part,
of any debt or other liability, is
returned by the bank unpaid, either
because of the amount of money
standing to the credit of that
account is insufficient to honour the
cheque or that it exceeds the
amount arranged to be paid from
that account by an agreement made
with that bank, such person shall
be deemed to have committed an
offence and shall, without prejudice
to any other provisions of this Act,
be punished with imprisonment for
(a term which may be extended to
two years), or with fine which may
extend to twice the amount of the
cheque, or with both:
Provided that nothing contained
in this section shall apply unless-
SCCH-2 10 C.C.No. 4736/2023
(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; (The period of 6 months has
been reduced to 3 months, vide R.B.I.
notification No.RBI/2011-
12/251,DBOD.AMLBC
No.47/14.01.001/2011-12, dated:4 th
November 2011 (w.e.f. 01.04.2012))
(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
SCCH-2 11 C.C.No. 4736/2023in due course of the cheque, within
fifteen days of the receipt of the
said notice.
Explanation: – For the purposes of
the section, “debt or other liability”
means a legally enforceable debt or
other liability.
139. Presumption in favour of
holder:- It shall be presumed, unless
the contrary is proved, that the
holder of a cheque received the
cheque of the nature referred to in
section 138 for the discharge, in
whole or in part, of any debt or
other liability.
13. At this juncture it is worth to refer the decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2010 S.C. 1898,
between Rangappa V/s Mohan wherein their lordships have
observed at para 26 as hereunder:
“No doubt that there is an initial
presumption which favours the
complainant”.
SCCH-2 12 C.C.No. 4736/2023
14. It is germane to note that the proceedings U/Sec.138
of N.I. Act is an exception to the general principle that the
accused is presumed to be innocent until the charge leveled
against him is proved beyond reasonable doubt. In the
proceedings initiated U/Sec.138 of the N.I. Act proof of
beyond reasonable doubt is subject to the presumption
envisaged under Sec.139 of the N.I. Act. Once the
requirement of Sec.138 of the N.I. Act is fulfilled, then it has
to be presumed that the cheque was issued in discharge of
legally recoverable debt or liability. The presumption
envisaged under Sec.139 of N.I. Act is mandatory
presumption and it has to be raised in every cheque bounce
cases.
15. Now, the important question before this Court is
whether the complainant has complied the ingredients of
Sec.138 of N.I.Act or not? In this connection, Ex.P.1 to
Ex.P.9 are relevant. Ex.P.1 & Ex.P2 are the cheques bearing
No.757105 and 757106 dated: 13.04.2023 and 18.04.2023.
Ex.P1(a) & Ex.P2(a) are the signatures of the accused. Ex.P3
& Ex.P4 are the deposit slips. Ex.P5 & Ex.P6 are the bank
endorsements dated15.04.2023. On careful perusal of Ex.P1
& Ex.P2 coupled with Ex.P3 to Ex.P6, it appears to this court
that, the complainant has presented the cheques for
encashment on 13.04.2023 & 18.04.2023 respectively and
SCCH-2 13 C.C.No. 4736/2023
cheques were got bounced on 15.04.2023 and 19.04.2023
i.e., within the stipulated period.
16. Now, the question before this court is whether Ex.P.1
& Ex.P.2 belongs to the accused and signature found in
Ex.P.1 & Ex.P.2 are the signatures of the accused or not?. It
is relevant to note that, the accused examined herself as
DW.1. During the course of her cross-examination, the
accused has clearly admitted her signature found in Ex.P1 &
Ex.P2. The admission of DW.1 is worth to reproduce here
itself for better understanding: “ನಿಪಿ.1 ರಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಸಹಿ ನನ್ನದೇ ಆಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ.
ನಿಪಿ.2 ರಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಸಹಿ ನನ್ನದೇ ಆಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ”. The contention of the accused
is that, at the time of availing Rs.50,000/- from the
complainant, she had given 4 signed blank cheques to the
complainant. Therefore after cogitating the evidence of DW.1
and also the admission of DW.1, it is crystal clear that Ex.P1
& Ex.P2 are pertaining to the bank account of accused and
Ex.P1(a) & Ex.P2(a) are the signatures of accused.
17. Now, the next question before this court is whether
the complainant has issued the legal notice in accordance
with law or not?. In this connection Ex.P.7, Ex.P7(a) and
Ex.P.7(b) are relevant. On careful perusal of these
documents, it appears to this court that, the complainant
has issued the legal notice to the accused on 06.05.2023 and
same was dispatched on 06.05.2023 itself. Therefore, it is
SCCH-2 14 C.C.No. 4736/2023
crystal clear that the complainant has issued the legal notice
within 30 days from the date of receiving of endorsement
from the bank.
18. Now, the next important question before this Court is
whether notice was served on the accused or not?. In this
connection Ex.P.8 & Ex.P9 are relevant. A careful perusal of
Ex.P.8, it appears to this Court that, the notice issued by the
complainant to the office address of the accused was
returned with shara as “Absent” on 08.05.2023 and the
notice sent to the residential address of the accused was
served on 08.05.2023 which was received by one Asha.
19. It is relevant to state that the object of issuance of
notice to the drawer is to provide an opportunity to pay the
cheque amount within 15 days of service of notice and
thereby free himself from the penal consequences of Sec.138
of Negotiable Instruments Act. In this regard, it is worth to
rely on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in
2007(6) SCC 555, between C.C. Alavi Haji vs Palapetty
Muhammed & Anr, Wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held
as hereunder: ” Section 27 gives rise to a presumption that
service of notice has been effected when it is sent to the
correct address by registered post. In view of the said
presumption, when stating that a notice has been sent by
registered post to the address of the drawer, it is
SCCH-2 15 C.C.No. 4736/2023
unnecessary to further aver in the complaint that in
spite of the return of the notice unserved, it is deemed
to have been served or that the addressee is deemed to
have knowledge of the notice. Unless and until the
contrary is proved by the addressee, service of notice is
deemed to have been effected at the time at which the
letter would have been delivered in the ordinary course
of business. This Court has already held that when a
notice is sent by registered post and is returned with a
postal endorsement refused or not available in the house
or house locked or shop closed or addressee not in
station, due service has to be presumed”.
20. The above referred decision is aptly applicable to the
case on hand. In the instant case, though the DW1 disputed
the issuance of notice. However, the accused has not
produced the documents to substantiate her address.
Moreover the accused has clearly admitted that she has been
working in BBMP. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that,
the complainant has correctly issued the notice to the
address of accused and the accused was evaded to receive
the same. Therefore, with the help of principles laid down by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision referred to above, this
court has come to the conclusion that, the complainant has
issued the notice to the correct address of the accused and
service of notice amounts to deemed service. In addition to
SCCH-2 16 C.C.No. 4736/2023
the above referred aspects, as per Sec.118 and Sec.139 of NI
Act presumption favours the complainant. Hence the
complainant has complied the ingredients of Sec.138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act.
21. Now, it is worth to refer the decision of the Hon’ble
Apex Court between Hiten P Dalal V/s Brathindranath
Manarji reported in 2001(6) SCC 16, wherein the Hon’ble
Apex Court observed that, “under Sec.138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act, the complainant is not required to
establish either the legality or enforceability of the debt
or liability since he can avail the benefit of presumption
U/Sec.118 and Sec.139 of N.I. Act in his favour”.
22. It is also settled position of law that, the presumption
available U/Sec. 138 of N.I Act is a rebuttable presumption.
Further, to rebut the said presumption the accused need not
to enter into the witness box. However, the accused can
establish his probable defence by creating a doubt about the
existence of legally enforceable debt or liability.
23. Further, it is also settled position of law that, the
standard of proof of rebutting the presumption is that of
preponderance of probabilities. It is also settled position of
law that, if the accused succeeded in rebutting the
presumption then the burden shifts back to the complainant.
SCCH-2 17 C.C.No. 4736/2023
At this juncture, again it is worth to refer the decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2010 S.C. 1898,
between Rangappa Vs. Sri. Mohan, wherein the Hon’ble
Apex Court has observed that, “the standard of proof to
rebut the presumption is that one of preponderance of
probabilities”.
24. It is also settled position of law that, “it is
immaterial that, the cheque may have been filled in by
any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly
signed by the drawer. If the cheque otherwise valid,
within the provisions of Sec.138 would be attracted”.
25. Now, this court has to see whether the accused has
rebutted the presumption or not?. As per the assertion of
the complainant, during October 2019 the accused sought
for financial assistance of Rs.5,00,000/-. He has arranged
the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and lent to the accused by way of
cash on 18.11.2019. At which point of time the accused was
agreed to pay interest at the rate of 2.5% p.a. and assured to
repay the same within 3 years and accused was also issued
two post dated cheques for Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/-
respectively. PW.1 was cross examined and accused was
also examined. On meticulous reading of cross-examination
of PW.1 and also evidence of DW.1, it would be gathered that
the accused has taken a contention that she had taken only
SCCH-2 18 C.C.No. 4736/2023
Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand only) as loan from the
complainant and at which point of time the complainant had
collected four signed blank cheques from her. Further cross-
examination of PW.1 reveals that the accused side has
denied the alleged financial transaction with respect to
Rs.5,00,000/- (Five lakhs only).
26. On careful perusal of entire complaint averments and
also the notice issued by the complainant, the complainant
has not asserted the execution of loan agreement by and
between the complainant and accused. However during the
course of cross-examination of PW.1, he has deposed that,
loan agreement was executed for Rs.5,00,000/- on the date
of lending money to the accused. Further, he has admitted
that, in the agreement there is a condition only with respect
to Rs.3,00,000/- and there is no clause with respect to
Rs.2,00,000/-. It is needless to mention that the
complainant side has not produced the alleged agreement in
his evidence. However during the course of cross
examination of DW.1, the alleged agreement was confronted
to DW.1 and DW.1 was admitted her signature found in the
alleged agreement. The said document got marked as Ex.P10
and signature of accused marked as Ex.P10(a).
27. It is further relevant to note that, either in the notice,
complaint or in the affidavit filed in support of oral
SCCH-2 19 C.C.No. 4736/2023
examination, the complainant has not averred about the
existence of agreement. However, for the first time during the
course of cross-examination of PW.1, the complainant has
disclosed about the execution of agreement. Now the
question before this court is whether Ex.P10 is with respect
to the transaction alleged in the complaint or not?. Hence in
order to answer this aspect, it is very much necessary to take
Ex.P10 here itself for discussion. According to the complaint
averments, on 18.11.2019 the complainant lent
Rs.5,00,000/- in cash. However, the contents of Ex.P10
reveals that on 10.11.2019 the complainant paid
Rs.3,00,000/- in cash. Further, there is no recital in Ex.P10
regarding lending of remaining amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. As
per the recitals of Ex.P10, it appears to this court that the
complainant lent Rs.3,00,000/- on 10.11.2019. Therefore
the recitals of Ex.P10 clearly contradicts the case of the
complainant. In order words it is not the case of the
complainant that on 10.11.2019, he had lent Rs.3,00,000/-
in cash and on 18.11.2019 he had lent remaining amount of
Rs.2,00,000/- in cash to the accused. Therefore the
contradictions pointed out by this court is fatal. At this
juncture, it is worth to reproduce the recitals of Ex.P10 for
better understanding:
“ಸನ್ ಎರಡು ಸಾವಿರದ ಹತ್ತೊ ೕಂಭತ್ತನೇ ಇಸವಿ ನವಂಬರ್ ಮಾಹೆ
ದಿನಾಂಕ ಹದಿನೆಂಟರಂದು (18.11.2019)ದ ಇದೇ ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು –
560020 ದ ಶೇಷಾದ್ರಿಪುರಂ, ವಿ. ವಿ. ಗಿರಿ ಕಾಲೋನಿ, ಕಿನೋ
SCCH-2 20 C.C.No. 4736/2023ಟಾಕೀಸ್ ಎದುರು, 6 ನೇ ನಂಬರುಳ್ಳ ಮನೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ವಾಸವಾಗಿರುವ ಲೇಟ್
ಶ್ರೀ ಕುಮಾರ್ ರವರ ಧರ್ಮಪತ್ನಿ ಅಮ್ಮಾ ಯಿ (ಹಣ ಪಡೆದರುವವರು)
(ಬಿಬಿಎಂಪಿಯ ಉದ್ಯೊ ೕಗಿ, ಗಾಂಧಿನಗರ ಶಾಖೆ) ಆದ ನಾನು, – ಇದೇ
ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು – 560085 ದ ಬನಶಂಕರಿ 3 ನೇ ಹಂತ ಡಿಸೋಜಾ
ಲೇಔಟ್,ಪಿ. ಇ. ಎಸ್ ಕಾಲೇಜು ಹಿಂಭಾಗ, 14 ನೇ ನಂಬರುಳ್ಳ
ಮನೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ವಾಸವಾಗಿರುವ ಲೇಟ್ ಲಿಂಗಯ್ಯ ರವರ ಮಗ ಶ್ರೀ
ಪುಟ್ಟಮುದ್ದೇ ಗೌಡ (ಹಣ ನೀಡುವವರು) ಆದ ನಿಮಗೆ ಈ ಮೂಲಕ
ಕೈಸಾಲ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಕರಾರು ಪತ್ರ ಬರೆದುಕೊಟ್ಟ ಕ್ರ ಮವೇನೆಂದರೆ, ಆದಾಗಿ,
ಅಮ್ಮಾ ಯಿ ಆದ ನಾನು ಈ ಮೆ ೕಲಿನ ವಿಳಾಸದಲ್ಲಿ ವಾಸವಾಗಿದ್ದು ,
ರೂ.3,00,000/- (ಮೂರು ಲಕ್ಷ ರೂಪಾಯಿ) ಗಳನ್ನು ಸಾಲವಾಗಿ
ನೀಡುವಂತೆ ಮೆ ೕಲೆ ತಿಳಿಸಿದ ಶ್ರೀ ಪುಟ್ಟಮುದ್ದೇಗೌಡ ಆದ ನಿಮ ್ಮನ್ನು
ಕೇಳಲಾಗಿ, ನೀವು ನಮಗೆ ಮೊತ್ತ ರೂ.3,00,000/- (ಮೂರು ಲಕ್ಷ
ರೂಪಾಯಿ) ಗಳನ್ನು ಕೊಡಲು ಒಪ್ಪಿ , ದಿನಾಂಕ 10.11.2019
ರಂದು ನಮಗೆ ನಗದು ಮೂಲಕ ಪಾವತಿ ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತೀರಿ. ಹಾಗೂ ಈ
ರೀತಿಯಾಗಿ ನೀವು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುವ ಮೆ ೕಲಿನ ಮೊತ್ತಕ್ಕೆ ಈ ಕೆಳಗೆ
ನಮೂದಿಸಿರುವ ಷರತ್ತು ಮತ್ತು ನಿಬಂಧನೆಗೆ ಒಳಪಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತದೆ. ಈ
ದಿವಸ ಪಡೆದಿರತಕ್ಕ ರೂ.3,00,000/- (ಮೂರು ಲಕ್ಷ
ರೂಪಾಯಿ)ಗಳ ಸಾಲದ ಮೊತ್ತವನ್ನು ಪಡೆದಿರುತ್ತೆ ೕವೆ. ಹಾಗೂ ಈ
ರೀತಿಯಾಗಿ ನಿವ್ಮಿು ಂದ ಪಡೆದಿರುವ ಮೆ ೕಲಿನ ಮೊತ್ತಕ್ಕೆ ತಿಂಗಳೂ 10 ನೇ
ತಾರೀಖಿನೊಳಗೆ ಶೇಕಡಾ 2.5 ರಂತೆ ಬಡ್ಡಿ ರೂಪದಲ್ಲಿ ಹಣ ಪಾವತಿ
ಮಾಡಲು ಒಪ್ಪಿರುತ್ತ ೇನೆ.
28. At the cost of repetition, the recitals of Ex.P10
contradicts the case of complainant. That apart there is no
averments regarding execution of agreement either in the
notice or in the complaint. Therefore, though the accused
admitted her signature in Ex.P10 will not come to the aid of
complainant to establish the case and it also appears to this
court that, the complainant may obtained signature of
accused in the blank stamp paper and prepared the same
according to his wish.
SCCH-2 21 C.C.No. 4736/2023
29. According to the accused, she had borrowed a sum of
Rs.50,000/- and at which point of time the complainant has
obtained four signed blank cheques from her. During the
course of cross-examination of DW.1 the learned counsel for
complainant suggested that, the accused has issued only two
cheques and not four cheques, the said suggestion was
denied by the accused. Now the question before this court is
whether the suggestion of learned counsel for complainant is
correct or the evidence of accused regarding issuance of four
signed blank cheques to the complainant is correct or not?.
In order to answer this aspect cross-examination of PW.1 is
relevant to take for discussion. It is relevant to note that
during the course of cross-examination of PW.1, he has
clearly deposed that at the time of lending loan amount itself
the accused has issued four cheques. At this juncture it is
worth to reproduce the cross-examination of PW.1 here itself
for better understanding: “ಆರೋಪಿಯು ಚೆಕ್ಕು ಗಳನ್ನು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತಾ ರೆಂದು
ಹೇಳಿದ್ದು ಸದರಿ ಚೆಕ್ಕು ಗಳನ್ನು ಯಾವಾಗ ನೀಡಿರುತ್ತಾ ರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಯು ನಾನು ಹಣ
ನೀಡಿದಾಗಲೇ ನಾಲ್ಕು ಚೆಕ್ಕು ಗಳನ್ನು ನೀಡಿದ್ದರು ಎಂದು ನುಡಿಯುತ್ತಾ ರೆ”. It is pivotal to
note that either in the notice or in the complaint, the
complainant has not disclosed the issuance of 4 cheques.
However, the complainant deposed the same during his
cross-examination. Therefore, the answer given by the PW.1
clearly contradicts the suggestion of the learned counsel with
respect to issuance of four cheques. As such, the suggestion
of learned counsel for complainant failed to inspire the
SCCH-2 22 C.C.No. 4736/2023
confidence of this court. Per contra, the evidence of DW.1
inspires the confidence of this court.
30. Further contention of the accused side is that, they
have denied the alleged loan transaction with respect to
Rs.5,00,000/-. Admittedly, the complainant has not
produced any documents to show that he has lent
Rs.5,00,000/- in cash on 18.11.2019. However, the
complainant has produced Ex.P10. Already this court has
observed that Ex.P10 contradicts the case of complainant. At
the cost of repetition, according to the complainant he had
lent Rs.5,00,000/- on 18.11.2019. However, Ex.P10 speaks
about only lending of Rs.3,00,000/- on 10.11.2019.
Therefore, the above referred aspects creates a doubt about
the alleged loan transaction.
31. That apart in the instant case the accused has
examined one witness of DW.2. He has filed his affidavit in
support of oral examination in chief. Later he was cross
examined from the side of complainant. During the course of
cross-examination he has expressed his ignorance regarding
para Nos.2 & 3 of the affidavit. Further he has expressed his
ignorance regarding execution of Ex.P10. Further, he has
expressed his ignorance regarding issuance of two cheques.
Further, he has expressed his ignorance regarding when
exactly the accused sought financial assistance and also
SCCH-2 23 C.C.No. 4736/2023
quantum of financial assistance. Likewise he expressed
ignorance regarding when exactly the complainant has lent
money to the complainant. Therefore, examination of DW.2
neither supports the defence of the accused nor case of the
complainant. Hence examination of DW.2 will not come to
the aid of accused. Hence this court do not wish to take the
evidence of DW.2 for elaborate discussion.
32. Next aspect is that, the accused has taken a
contention that she had taken loan of Rs.50,000/- from the
complainant, out of which she has repaid Rs.41,000/-. In
order to substantiate the same, the accused has relied on
Ex.D1. Ex.D1 is the bank statement pertaining to the
accused. On perusal of this document, it reveals that on
03.10.2020 the accused has paid Rs.9,000/- through self
cheque. Likewise on 07.01.2021, Rs.9,000/- paid through
self cheque, on 02.12.2021 Rs.11,000/- has been given to
the complainant through cheque. On 01.06.2022
Rs.12,000/- paid by the accused through self cheque. In
addition to that during the course of cross-examination of
PW.1, he has clearly admitted the receiving of Rs.41,000/-
viz. Rs.9,000/-, Rs.9,000/-, Rs.11,000/- & Ex.12,000/-
respectively on different dates. Therefore, at this juncture it
is worth to reproduce the deposition of PW.1 here itself for
better understanding: “ಆರೋಪಿಯು ನಿಮ ್ಮ ಬಳಿ ಕೇವಲ ಐವತ್ತು ಸಾವಿರ
ಹಣವನ್ನು ಮಾತ್ರ ಸಾಲವಾಗಿ ಪಡೆದಿದ್ದರೇ ವಿನಃ ನೀವು ದೂರಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಹೇಳಿರುವಂತೆ ಐದು ಲಕ್ಷ
SCCH-2 24 C.C.No. 4736/2023
ಅಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ಆರೋಪಿಯು ರೂ.41,000/- ಹಣವನ್ನು ನಿಮ ್ಮ ಖಾತೆಗೆ
ಹಾಕಿದ್ದಾ ರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಆರೋಪಿಯು ಕೇವಲ ರೂ.9,000/- ಹಣವನ್ನು ಮಾತ್ರ
ಹಿಂತಿರುಗಿಸಬೇಕು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ಆರೋಪಿಯು ದಿಃ03.10.2020 ರಂದು
ರೂ.9,000/- ಹಣವನ್ನು ಸೆಲ್ಫ್ ಚೆಕ್ ಮೂಲಕ ನೀಡಿರುತ್ತಾ ರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಆರೋಪಿಯು
ದಿಃ07.01.2021 ರಂದು ರೂ.9,000/- ಹಣವನ್ನು ಸೆಲ್ಫ್ ಚೆಕ್ ಮೂಲಕ ನೀಡಿರುತ್ತಾ ರೆ
ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ, ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಯು ಬಡ್ಡಿಯ ಕಡೆಗೆ ನೀಡಿರುತ್ತಾ ರೆ ಎಂದು ನುಡಿಯುತ್ತಾ ರೆ. ಆರೋಪಿಯು
ದಿಃ02.12.2021 ರಂದು ನಿಮ ್ಮ ಹೆಸರಿನಲ್ಲಿ ರೂ.11,000/- ಹಣಕ್ಕೆ ಚೆಕ್ ಅನ್ನು
ನೀಡಿರುತ್ತಾ ರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಆರೋಪಿಯು ದಿಃ01.06.2022 ರಂದು ರೂ.12,000/-
ಹಣವನ್ನು ಸೆಲ್ಫ್ ಚೆಕ್ ಮೂಲಕ ನೀಡಿರುತ್ತಾ ರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಈ ಮೆ ೕಲಿದ ಹಣವನ್ನು ನೀವು
ಬ್ಯಾ ಂಕಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಪಡೆದುಕೊಂಡಿರುತ್ತೀರ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಆರೋಪಿಯು ರೂ.41,000/- ಹಣವನ್ನು
ನೀಡಿದ್ದರೂ ಸಹ ಐದು ಲಕ್ಷ ಹಣ ಬರಬೇಕು ಎಂದು ಸುಳ್ಳು ಕೇಸು ಹಾಕಿದ್ದೀರ ಎಂದರೆ
ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ, ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಯು ಬಡ್ಡಿಯ ಕಡೆಗೆ ನೀಡಿರುತ್ತಾ ರೆ ಎಂದು ನುಡಿಯುತ್ತಾ ರೆ. ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಯು
ಬ್ಯಾ ಂಕ್ ಸ್ಟೇಟ್ಮೆಂಟ್ ಅನ್ನು ನೋಡಿ ಗುರುತಿಸಿದ ಕಾರಣ ಸದರಿ ದಾಖಲೆಯನ್ನು ನಿ.ಡಿ.1 ಎಂದು
ಗುರುತಿಸಲಾಯಿತು”.
33. It is needless to mention that either in the notice or in
the complaint, the complainant has not disclosed the
receiving of Rs.40,000/-. Suppose, for the sake of
arguments the complainant received the said amount
towards interest, then what was the impediment for the
complainant to disclose the same either in notice or in
complaint. In this regard there is no proper explanation from
SCCH-2 25 C.C.No. 4736/2023
the side of complainant. This amounts to suppression of
facts.
34. With the help of discussions referred to above, it is
crystal clear that, complainant has utterly failed to prove the
alleged loan transaction. The production of Ex.P10 itself
creates doubt about the alleged loan transaction. At the cost
of repetition, there is a clear contradiction between Ex.P10 &
also the case of complainant. The contradictions pointed out
by this court is fatal to the case of complainant. Thus, the
presumption formed in favor of the complainant stands
successfully rebutted.
35. On evaluation of the entire evidence, this Court finds
that, the evidence adduced by P.W.1 is improbable and
difficult to believe. As such, the evidence of P.W.1 is failed to
inspire the confidence of this Court. The documentary
evidence produced by the P.W.1 is not sufficient to hold that,
there was a financial transaction by and between the
complainant and accused with respect to Rs.5,00,000/- as
alleged in the complaint. Further, on evaluation of the entire
evidence, it appears to this court that the contention of
accused regarding she had availed loan of Rs.50,000/- from
the complainant and at which point of time the complainant
had collected four signed blank cheques from her appears to
SCCH-2 26 C.C.No. 4736/2023
be nearer to the truth. Further, it appears to this court that
the complainant has filled the cheques for his unlawful gain.
36. Therefore, from the available materials on record, it
appears to this court that, it is a case of mis using of
cheques. The evidence also reveals that, there was no
existence of legally enforceable debt by and between the
complainant and accused with respect to the amount
mentioned in the complaint.
37. Therefore, it is pellucid that the accused has raised
the probable doubt regarding the advancement of loan of
Rs.5,00,000/- by the complainant. Hence, this court holds
that, the accused has raised plausible defence and
successfully rebutted the presumption available in favour of
the complainant in the present set of facts.
38. It is pertinent to note that, once the accused has
rebutted the presumption, the burden shifts back to the
complainant. However, the complainant has failed to prove
his case. Hence, this court holds that, the complainant has
failed to prove that, the accused has committed an offence
punishable Under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Accordingly, this Court is answered Point No.1 in the
Negative.
SCCH-2 27 C.C.No. 4736/2023
39. Point No 2 : In view of the above findings, this Court
proceeds to pass following:
:O R D E R:
Acting U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C., the
accused is acquitted for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
The bail bond of the accused shall
stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by her,
revised and corrected by me, and then pronounced in the open
Court on this the 04th April, 2026)(H.P. Mohan Kumar)
VI Addl. Judge and ACJM.,
Court of Small Causes,
Bengaluru.
:ANNEXURE:
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE COMPLAINANT:
P.W.1 : Sri. S Puttamuddegowda.
SCCH-2 28 C.C.No. 4736/2023
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P.1 & : Original Cheques bearing No.757105 and 757106
Ex.P.2 dated 13.04.2023.
Ex.P.1(a) & :
Signatures of the accused.
Ex.P.2(a)
Ex.P.3 & :
Deposit slips.
Ex.P.4
Ex.P.5 & :
Bank endorsements.
Ex.P.6
Ex.P.7 : Office copy of legal notice dated:06.05.2023.
Ex.P.7(a) & :
Postal receipts.
Ex.P.7(b)
Ex.P.8 : Returned Postal cover.
Ex.P.8(a) : Returned notice.
Ex.P.9 : Acknowledgment due card.
Ex.P.10 : Hand loan agreement dated 18.11.2019.
Ex.P.10(a) : Signature of accused.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE ACCUSED:
D.W.1 : Smt. Ammayi
D.W.2 : Sri M Madegowda.
SCCH-2 29 C.C.No. 4736/2023
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED:
Ex.D.1 : Account statement pertaining to accused.
Ex.D.2 : Transfer certificate pertaining to Nandini K.
Ex.D.3 : Transfer certificate pertaining to Prema K.
Ex.D.4 : Marriage invitation card pertaining to
Nandini K.Digitally signed by
HP
HP MOHANKUMAR
MOHANKUMAR Date: 2026.04.06
12:23:05 +0530(H.P. Mohan Kumar)
VI Addl. Judge and ACJM.,
Court of Small Causes,
Bengaluru.
