Bangalore District Court
Mahesha .N vs Sathish on 2 April, 2026
KABC030132102021
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE CITY
Dated this the 2nd day of April 2026
Present : SRI. GOKULA. K
B.A.LL.B.
XXV Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bangalore City.
C.C.No.4080/2021
Complainant : Mahesha N
S/o.Nagaraju
Aged 31 years
R/at No.65/9/373
5th cross, Parappana Agrahara
Bengaluru 560 100.
(By GS -Advocate )
V/s
Accused : Satish
Aged 38 years
R/at S.R.Industries
No.17/4,Bommasandra Jigani Link Road
Bommasandra 4th phase
Near Appotex
Bengaluru 560 099.
(By KSS - Advocate )
Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty
Final Order: Accused is Convicted
Date of judgment 02-04-2026
2
C.C.No.4080/2021
JUDGMENT
The complainant has filed the complaint under Section 200 of
Criminal Procedure Code against the accused for the offence
punishable under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The brief case of the complainant is as under:
The complainant and accused are known to each other.
The accused approached the complainant on 05.06.2019 for
hand loan of Rs.3,00,000/- for the purposes of his business and
family necessities. He has assured to repay the loan within six
months. It is pleaded that believing the accused, the
complainant has paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- by way of cash to
the accused on 16.06.2019. The complainant approached the
accused demanding to return the money with interest, but the
accused failed to return back the amount. After several
requests, in discharge of said liability, the accused has issued a
cheque bearing No.041120 for Rs.3,00,000/- dated 22.09.2020
drawn on Bank of India, Chandapura Branch, Bengaluru
560081. The complainant presented said cheque through its
banker ie Corporation Bank, Bommasandra Branch, Bangalore
and said cheque returned dishonored for the reason “Exceeds
Arrangement” on 30.09.2020. Hence, the complainant issued
the legal notice on 08.10.2020 through RPAD and said notice
returned with shara “Insufficient address not known” on
27.10.2020. It is stated that inspite of issuance of notice to the
3
C.C.No.4080/2021correct address of the accused, the accused failed to pay the
claim amount to the complainant within the statutory time.
Therefore, the accused has committed the offence under Section
138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore the complainant
has filed the complaint.
3. This case is initially filed before XV the ACJM, Bengaluru City
and it is transferred to this court vide orders of Hon’ble CJM
Bengaluru City bearing no. ADM I 22/2025 dated 02-12-2025.
4. On the basis of private complaint filed by the complainant,
the court has taken cognizance of offence and registered the
case in PCR No.12387/2020 and recorded sworn statement of
the complainant as PW 1 and got marked 6 documents as Ex.P1
to Ex.P6. The court by considering the material on record issued
process against the accused under Section 204 of Cr.PC by
registering the criminal case. In response to the process issued
by this court, the accused appeared before this court and he is
released on bail. The copy of the complaint is served to the
accused along with the summons as contemplated under
Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code.
5. The substance of the acquisition as provided under Section
251 of Cr.P.C is read over to the accused and plea is recorded.
The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4
C.C.No.4080/2021
6. In view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in Indian Bank Association V/s Union of India and others
reported in AIR 2014 SCW 3463, the affidavit filed by the
complainant at the stage of taking cognizance and documents
marked is treated as evidence under section 145 of Negotiable
Instruments Act. The PW 1 is recalled on the application of the
accused and he is subjected to cross examination. The
complainant has also examined one witness as PW 2. After
conclusion of evidence of the complainant, the incriminating
circumstances in the evidence of PW 1and PW 2 is read over to
the accused and his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
recorded. The accused has denied the same as false. The
accused himself examined as DW 1. During cross examination
of DW 1 Ex.P7 and Ex.P.8 have been marked on confrontation.
7. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the complainant and
arguments of learned counsel for the accused and the reply of
the complainant and perused the material on record and written
arguments submitted by the accused.
8. On the basis of the material on record the following points
arise for the consideration of this court :
1. Whether the complainant proves beyond all
reasonable doubt that the accused availed hand
5
C.C.No.4080/2021loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from the complainant and
towards repayment of said legally recoverable
amount, the accused has issued cheque bearing
No.041120 for Rs.3,00,000/- dated 22.09.2020
drawn on Bank of India, Chandapura Branch,
Bengaluru 560 081 and on presentation of the
same through the complainant’s banker ie
Corporation Bank, Bommasandra branch, it is
dishonoured for the reason “kindly contact
drawer drawee bank and please present again”/
exceeds arrangements on 30.09.2020 and
inspite of issuance of demand notice dated
08.10.2020 to his correct address, the accused
has not complied the demands in the notice and
thus the accused has committed an offence
punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act?
2. What Order or Sentence ?
9. The findings of this court to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 In the Affirmative.
Point No.2 As per final order
for the following :
REASONS
10. POINT NO.1: To prove the case the complainant himself
examined as PW-1 and in his evidence affidavit he has
reiterated the averments made in the complaint. The PW 1 has
deposed that the accused approached him on 05.06.2019 for
hand loan of Rs.3,00,000/- for business and family necessities
and assured to return the said amount within six months. He
6
C.C.No.4080/2021
has deposed that believing the accused, he has paid
Rs.3,00,000/- by way of cash to the accused on 16.06.2019. He
has deposed that in discharge of said liability, the accused
issued a cheque bearing No.041120 for Rs.3,00,000/- dated
22.09.2020 drawn on Bank of India, Chandapura Branch,
Bengaluru 560081 his favour. The complainant has produced
said cheque as Ex.P.1. The PW 1 has further deposed that when
said cheque was presented through its banker i.e. Corporation
Bank, Bommasandra Branch, Bangalore and said cheque
returned dishonored for the reason “Exceeds Arrangements” on
30.09.2020. Said Bank endorsement is marked as Ex.P.2. On
perusal fo Ex.P 2 it shows that the cheque is dishonoured for
the reason “Kindly contact drawer drawee bank and please
present again”. The PW 1 further deposed that the complainant
issued the legal notice dated 08.10.2020 through RPAD and
said notice returned with shara “Insufficient address not
known” on 27.10.2020. The complainant has produced said
notice as Ex.P.3. The PW 1 deposed that he has issued the
notice to the last known address of the accused and it is
deemed to be duly served. Evidencing the same, the
complainant has produced the postal receipts and the returned
postal cover as Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5. He has deposed that inspite
of issuance of legal notice the accused failed to make payment.
7
C.C.No.4080/2021
11. To substantiate the claim of the complainant, he has
examined one witness as PW2. The PW2 in his evidence deposed
that in his presence the accused has paid a sum of
Rs.3,00,000/- to the accused and also deposed that the accused
has issued the cheque towards repayment of the said amount.
12. Now it is proper to consider where the complainant has
complied all the statutory requirements for commission of
offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The
essential ingredients of section 138 and 142 of Negotiable
Instruments Act to be complied are i) drawing of the cheque by
the accused from his account ii) presentation of the cheque to
the bank with in the period of three months, iii) returning of the
cheque unpaid by the drawee bank iv) giving notice in writing to
the drawer of the cheque demanding of the payment of cheque
amount with in the period of 30 days, v) failure of the drawer to
make payment within the period of 15 days after receipt of the
demand notice and v) Presentation of the complaint within a
month by the complainant after expiry of 15 days of service of
notice to the accused. Therefore it is proper to consider whether
the statutory requirements for constituting the offence under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is complied by the
complainant.
8
C.C.No.4080/2021
13. The cheque is dated 22.09.2020. It is presented for
collection and dishonored on 30.09.2020 for the reason “kindly
contact drawer drawee bank and please present again”. The
demand notice is issued on 08.10.2020 and it deemed to be
served on 27.10.2020. On failure of the accused to comply with
the demands made by the complainant in the notice with in the
statutory time, the cause of action for the prosecution arose on
11-11-2020. The complaint is filed before this court on
11-11-2020 with in the time provided under the statute. Thus
the complainant has complied all the statutory requirements for
constitution of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act.
14. The accused has not disputed that the Exhibit P1 cheque is
drawn from his bank account. The accused has also not
disputed his signature in Exhibit P1 cheque. The accused has
taken the contention that the complainant has stolen blank
signed cheque from his industry. The cheque was dishonored
for the reason, kindly contact the drawer and present again. But
in the complaint and in the evidence of PW1, he has stated that
the cheque was dishonored for the reason, exceeds
arrangements. The accused has not disputed the fact that there
is no sufficient amount in the account when the cheque was
presented for collection. Even though in the oral evidence, PW1
9
C.C.No.4080/2021
has deposed that cheque was dishonored for the reason ‘exceeds
arrangements’ as against the contents of Exhibit P2 Dishonored
memo. The documentary evidence prevails over the oral
evidence and both the reasons stated by PW1 and in Exhibit P2,
dishonor memo shows that the said was dishonored. Therefore,
in view of the presumptions available under Section 146 of
Negotiable Instruments Act, the endorsement issued by the
banker is presumed to be correct till contrary is proved. To
prove the contrary, the accused has not taken any defence that
he has sufficient amount in the account. It is not the case of the
accused that he had sufficient balance in his account to honour
the cheque when it is presented for collection. Therefore it is to
be held that the cheque was dishonoured by the banker for the
reason kindly contact the drawer meaning thereby there is no
sufficient funds to honour the cheque.
15. The accused has denied service of the demand notice. But
the accused in his cross-examination as DW1 has admitted his
address mentioned in Exhibit P3 notice and Exhibit P5 postal
envelope and also in the cause title of the complaint. Therefore
it is clear that the notice is issued to the correct address of the
accused. Therefore, under Section 27 of General Procedure Act,
the notice issued to the correct address of the accused can be
held that it is deemed to be served.
10
C.C.No.4080/2021
16. Therefore, the complainant has complied basic requirements
for constitution of the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act. The complainant has proved issuance of
cheque by the accused and also proved dishonour of the same
for the reason funds insufficient etc and Service of the demand
notice and non-compliance of the demands made in the notice
by the accused within the statutory time. Therefore, the
complainant is entitled for presumption under Section 118 and
139 of Negotiable Instrument Act. The provisions of Section 118
provides for presumption as to negotiable Instruments which
reads as follows –
118- Presumptions as to negotiable
Instruments – Until the contrary is proved,
the following presumptions 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,
indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was
accepted, indorsed, negotiated or
transferred, was accepted, indorsed,
negotiated or transferred for consideration;
(b) as to date – that every negotiable
instrument bearing a date was made or
drawn on such date; (c) ………………
The provisions of Section 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act
reads as under:-
11
C.C.No.4080/2021
139- Presumption in favour of holder – It should 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.
17. In the decision relied by both the parties, reported in (2010)
11 SCC 411 between Rangappa V/s Sri Mohan Hon’ble
Supreme court has held that –
The presumption mandated by Section 139 of the act
does indeed include the existence of a legally
enforceable debt or liability.
It is also observed that
Section 139 of the Act is an example of a reverse
onus clause that has been included in furtherance of
the legislative objective of improving the credibility of
negotiable instrument. It is also held that in such a
scenario, the test of proportionality should guide the
construction and interpretation of reverse onus
clauses and the defendant caused cannot be
expected to discharge an unduly high slandered or
proof.
Therefore, in view of the principles laid down in the decision the
onus is on the accused to rebut the presumption under 139 of
12
C.C.No.4080/2021
18. The accused has not issued any reply and he has not
received the demand notice even though it is issued to the
correct address of the accused. The accused has taken his
defence in the cross-examination of PW1. The defence of the
accused is that he has not availed any loan from the
complainant, much less a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as alleged by
the complainant. He is not liable to pay any amount to the
complainant and there is no legally recoverable debt or liability.
It is the defence of the accused is that he is running a industry.
by name SR Industries. For the convenience of his business
activities in the industry, he used to keep one or two blank
signed cheques in his office in the industry. The complainant
and PW2 have committed theft of blank signed cheque kept by
the accused in his industry and misused the same for filing of
this case. He came to know about misuse of cheque and theft
committed by the complainant only after receipt of the
summons in this case.
19. The accused has also taken the defence that the
complainant is not having sufficient financial capacity to lend a
sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the accused. It is also defence of the
accused that he himself, PW1 and PW2 are the partners in the
business and there arose dispute between the complainant,
PW2 and the accused in the business transactions. Therefore,
13
C.C.No.4080/2021
in view of such dispute, there is difference of opinion between
the complainant and PW2 in the one side and the accused in
the other side. Therefore the complainant and PW 2 came to his
industry and picked up quarrel with the workers in the
premises. In this regard, he has lodged complaint against the
complainant and PW2.
20. The accused shall prove his defence with probable evidence.
Mere raising of contention or denial of the liability is not
sufficient to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of
Negotiable Instruments Act. With regard to the financial
capacity of complainant to lend a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- in the
cross-examination of PW1, it is elicited that he is working in
Raghavendra Enterprises at Bommasandra and he is having
monthly salary of Rs.18,500/-. It is also elicited that the
complainant is residing in a rented house from last 10 years. It
is also elicited that he is also working in the night shift in a pub
for parking the cars of the customers and having income. It is
also elicited that he is also bearing his the domestic expenses of
his house. In the cross-examination of DW1, he has deposed
that the complainant is working in a hardware shop. But he
stated that he do not know about the salary of the complainant
and also he do not know about the source of income of the
complainant to lend a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. Thus upon
14
C.C.No.4080/2021
considering entire material record placed with regard to the
financial status of the complainant is concerned, the accused
has pleaded his ignorance about the financial background of the
complainant, but he has admitted that complainant is working
in a hardware shop. The PW1 has deposed that he is having
monthly salary of Rs.18,500/- and he is also working in a pub
in the night shift for parking of the vehicles of the customers
and generating income from his duty. As the accused is
ignorant about the facts deposed by PW 1, denial of such
contention of the complainant by the accused is not having
much relevance. Therefore, having regard to this material placed
on record by the parties, no circumstances have been brought
on record to doubt the financial capacity of the complainant to
lend a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. Therefore, on the ground of
financial status of the complainant, the fact of lending cannot
be doubted. The evidence brought on record is not sufficient to
doubt the financial capacity of the complainant to lend a sum of
Rs.3,00,000/-.
21. Another defence of the accused is that the complainant and
PW2 have committed theft of blank signed cheque kept in his
industry for the purpose of his business activities. The PW1 has
denied such suggestions of learned counsel for the accused. The
PW2 has also denied the suggestions of the learned counsel for
15
C.C.No.4080/2021
the accused that he himself and the complainant have
committed theft of the cheque from the premises of the industry
of the accused. In the evidence of accused as DW1 he has
deposed that in the year 2019 the complainant and PW2 have
taken blank signed cheque kept in his industry. In the cross-
examination, he has deposed that in the month of May 2020, he
came to know about the theft of his cheques from his premises
of the industry. Now it is pertinent to note that the cheque is
dated 22.09.2020 and it is presented on 29.09.2020. Demand
notice is issued on 18.10.2020. The complaint is filed before
this court on 11.11.2020. As per the statement of DW1, he
came to know about the theft of Cheque in the month of May
2020, much prior to the date of the cheque and presentation of
the cheque for collection. But it is pertinent to note that even
though he came to know about the theft of the cheque in the
month of May 2020, the accused has not taken any legal action
which is expected from a prudent man in such circumstances.
The accused has admitted in his evidence that he has not
lodged any complaint against the complainant or against PW2
for theft of the cheque from his premises. He has also admitted
that he has not issued any demand notice for return of the
cheque and not taken any legal action to recover the cheque
from the complainant. The accused once deposed that he came
to know about theft and misuse of the cheque after receipt of
16
C.C.No.4080/2021
process in this case. If it is the fact, till this day, the accused
has not taken any legal action against the complainant for
misuse of the cheque. Thus, upon appreciating the evidence of
DW1 and the suggestions made to the witnesses of the
complainant, except self-serving statement of accused that he
has kept blank signed cheques in the premises of his industry
and the complainant has stolen the same and misused for filing
of this case is not probabilised with probable evidence.
Therefore this contention or the accused is not supported with
probable evidence and it is not helpful to the accused to rebut
the presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments
Act.
22. The accused has also taken the contention that the
complainant and PW2 have came to the premises of the
industry and quarreled with the workers working in the
premises. Therefore he has lodged the complaint against the
complainant and PW2 before Surya City Police Station. With
regard to this defence, the accused has not made any
suggestion to PW1. This defence is taken for the first time in the
cross-examination of PW2. The PW2 has denied such
contentions of the accused and he has deposed that he himself
and PW1 went to the premises of the accused demanding
repayment of the hand loan availed by the accused. Therefore
17
C.C.No.4080/2021
the accused has filed false complaint against himself and the
complainant. But he has denied that they have quarreled with
the workers of the accused and for that reason the accused has
not to be complained. The accused in the cross examination of
PW 2 has also suggested that he himself, complainant and PW2
are the partners in business. There is difference of opnion arose
in the business between the complainant, PW 2 and the
accused. This contention is raised for the first time in the Cross
examination of PW 2. No such suggestion has been made to
PW1 that they are the partners in business of the accused and
there is dispute between the complainant and accused in the
business. The DW 1 in his evidence also has not deposed these
facts suggested to PW2. Therefore, this defence of the accused is
also not a probable defence and it is not helpful to the accused
to rebut the presumption under Section 9 of Negotiable
Instruments Act.
23. The accused in the cross-examination as DW1 has
admitted that the complainant had filed a complaint before
Surya City Police Station stating that he owes a sum of
Rs.3,00,000/- to the Complainant. He has also admitted that he
has issued Exhibit P8 cheque to the complainant along with
Exhibit P7 letter. But he has denied that in the Exhibit P7 letter
he has acknowledged the debt of Rs.3,00,000/- to the
18
C.C.No.4080/2021
complainant. The complainant has produced a cheque issued by
the accused to the complainant as Exhibit P8 dated 10.03.2020.
The complainant has also produced the statement of the
accused as Ex.P 7, wherein he has acknowledged that he has
received a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from the complainant as hand
loan and in this regard complainant has lodged the complaint
with Surya City Police Station and in the Surya City Police
Station he has issued post-dated Exhibit P8 cheque to the
complainant. Exhibit P7. Exhibit P8 is supported with the letter
of the accused Exhibit P7. It is true that the complainant has
not initiated any prosecution on the basis of Exhibit P 8 cheque
and it is not presented for collection. The Ex.P 1 cheque in
question is dated 22.09.2020, after 6 months of Exhibit P 8
cheque, Therefore, the Exhibit P 7 and P 8 letter and the
cheque produced by the complainant corroborates the case of
the complainant that he has lent a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the
accused.
24. For the rebuttal of the presumption under Section 139 of
Negotiable Instruments Act, the accused has also relied some of
the contradictions in the evidence of the complainant. The
complainant in the complaint has stated that the accused has
issued the cheque towards repayment of the hand loan when he
has demanded for repayment of the amount. But in the cross-
19
C.C.No.4080/2021
examination, he has deposed that the accused has issued post-
dated cheque at the time of lending the amount. In the
complaint, PW1 has stated that he has demanded repayment of
the hand loan with interest. But in the cross-examination, he
has deposed that there is no agreement with the accused for
repayment of loan with interest. As per the averments in the
complaint and evidence of PW1, the accused has agreed to
repay the amount within 6 months of lending. But the PW2 in
its evidence deposes that there is no conversation at the time of
lending as to when the amount is to be repaid by the accused to
the complainant. Thus, upon considering these contradictions
elicited from the mouth of complainant and PW2 in the cross-
examination, whether these contradictions are fatal to the case
of the prosecution, is to be appreciated. As discussed above, the
accused has failed to prove his defence with probable evidence.
These minor contradictions in the evidence of PW1 and PW2
itself will not create a reasonable doubt about the truthfulness
of the statement of the witnesses before the court. In this case
the complainant has not claimed that accused has issued
cheque by adding the interest to principal. Further, whether
the cheque is issued at the time of lending for security or when
the complainant has demanded for repayment, also does not
make much difference. Even if the cheque is issued at the time
of lending, at the time of issuing the cheque there was liabilty to
20
C.C.No.4080/2021
the accused to repay the loan. Therefore when the accused has
not repaid the loan, such cheque will mature for presentation
for realization of money lent to the accused. This aspect has
been clarified in the decision of Hon’ble Supreme court reported
in (2022) 18 SCC 614 between Sripati Singh(since Dead)
through his son Vs State of Jharkhand and another. Wherein it
is held that –
21. A Cheque issued as security pursuant to a
financial transaction cannot be considered as a
worthless piece of paper under every
circumstance. “security” is something given as a
pledge of payment. It is given, deposited or
pledged to make certain the fulfillment of an
obligation to which the parties to the transaction
are bound. If in a transaction, a loan is
advanced and the borrower agrees to repay the
amount in a specified time frame and issues a
cheque as security to secure such repayment; if
the loan amount is not repaid in any other form
before the due date or if there is no other
understanding or agreement between the parties
to defer the payment of amount, the cheque
which is issued as security would mature for
presentation and the drawee of the cheque
would be entitled to present the same. On such
presentation, if the same is dishonoured, the
consequences contemplated under Section 138
and the other provisions of the NI Act would
flow.
21
C.C.No.4080/2021
Therefore in view of the principles laid down in this decision,
even if the cheque issued for security may also mature for
presentation and on dishonour of the same the consequences
under Negotiable Instruments Act will follow. As discussed
above, the accused has failed to probabilise that the
complainant has stolen the cheque from his custody. He has
also failed to probabilise his defence that he has not availed any
loan from the complainant. He has also failed to probabilise that
there is dispute between himself and the complainant about the
business of the industry, therefore, the accused has misused
the cheque in question.
25. Therefore upon cumulative reading of the evidence on
record, for the above discussions, this court is of the considered
view that the accused has not placed probable evidence to hold
that existence of debt is doubtful. Therefore, the contentions
raised by the accused is not sufficient to rebut the presumption
of existence of debt and issuance of cheque towards discharge of
legal liability under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Therefore this court concludes that the accused has failed to
rebut the presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable
Instruments Act. Therefore it is to be presumed about existence
of legally recoverable debt and that EX.P 1 cheque is issued
towards discharge of such legally recoverable debt. All the
22
C.C.No.4080/2021
statutory requirements for constitution of offence under Section
138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act is complied by the
complainant. Therefore this court concludes that the
complainant has successfully proved that the accused
committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore this court answers the
above point No.1 in the Affirmative.
26. POINT NO. 2 : While answering the point no. 1 this court
concluded that the complainant proved that the accused
committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act. The Amount covered under the
cheque is Rs.3,00,000/-. The cheque issued by the accused is
dated 22.09.2020. The money involved in the case is used in
commercial transactions. Therefore, the fine amount is
calculated for a sum of Rs. 4,58,500/-.
27. The Ho’ble High Court of Karnataka in the reportable
decision in CRL.RP No. 996 of 2016 dated 09-07-2025 between
M/s Banavathy and Company VS Mahaveer Electro Mech (P)
Ltd at para 21 has held that –
21. In case lesser interest is awarded and only
default sentence is imposed, the rigor of offence
under Section 138 will be diluted and thereby the
object of the Statute will be defeated. If recovery and
compensatory part is not taken care of while
determining the quantum of sentence and
23
C.C.No.4080/2021
appropriate interest is not awarded, until the date of
recovery of the entire amount, the complainant will
be forced to file civil suit on the same subject matter.
In view of Section 143(3) the trial for offence under
Section 138 of N.I.Act has to be completed within six
months. If the said provision is not adhered to and
the trial for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act
takes 4 to 5 years, in the mean time, the claim of the
complainant for recovery of the cheque amount by
filing civil suit becomes barred by limitation. Not
only that the accused who is convicted for offence
under Section 138 of N.I.Act challenges the same
before the Sessions Court wherein the matter takes
2 to 3 years. The accused unsuccessful in the said
appeal prefers revision petition before the High
Court and it is seen that the disposal of revision
takes more than 5 years. After all this if the
complainant has to receive the fine/compensation as
awarded by the trial Court, if it is cheque amount or
little higher than the cheque amount, he will be at
loss and put to injustice. Therefore, while passing
the order of sentence after determining the
fine/compensation, the Court shall also pass an
order to pay future interest @ 9% p.a. on the
compensation amount payable to the complainant
by fixing time of one/two months to deposit
compensation amount so that even if the matter is
challenged before the Sessions Court in appeal and
High Court in revision the interest of the
complainant will be protected.
In view of the directions issued in the above refereed judgment,
it is also proper to direct the accused to pay future interest on
the fine amount at the rate of 9 % P.A. till payment. Therefore
considering all these aspects this court proceed to pass the
following –
24
C.C.No.4080/2021
ORDER
By exercising powers conferred U/sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C.,
the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and he is sentenced to
pay a fine of Rs.4,58,500/-(Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Eight
Thousand and Five Hundred Only) with in a month and in
default, pay interest at the rate of 9% from this day till payment
of fine amount, and in default to pay the fine, the accused shall
undergo simple imprisonment of 6 months.
Further acting U/s 357(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. out of the fine
amount a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) shall
be defrayed as prosecution expenses to the state.
Further acting U/s 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. a sum of
Rs.4,48,500/-(Rupees Four Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand and
Five Hundred Only) and interest out of the fine amount on
recovery shall be paid as compensation to the complainant.
Supply free copy of the judgment to the accused.
(Partly dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, typed by her,
partially dictated to Adalath Ai computer application, transcribed by it,
corrected and signed then pronounced by me in the open court on this the
2nd day of April 2026).
(GOKULA.K)
XXV A.C.J.M., BANGALORE CITY.
25
C.C.No.4080/2021
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
PW.1 : Mahesha.N PW.2 : Somashekar
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P1 : Cheque Ex.P2 : Bank Endorsement Ex.P3 : Office copy of Legal Notice. Ex.P4 : Postal receipts Ex.P5 : Returned postal envelope Ex.P6 : Copy of Tax invoice Ex.P7 : Letter Ex.P8 : Cheque
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE ACCUSED:
DW.1 : Sathish
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE ACCUSED:
Nil
(GOKULA.K.)
XXV A.C.J.M., BANGALORE CITY.
