Bangalore District Court
Nagaraju vs Lokesh on 10 April, 2026
1
C.C.No.2924/2021
KABC030097222021
Presented on : 08-02-2021
Registered on : 08-02-2021
Decided on : 10-04-2026
Duration : 5 years, 2 months, 2 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XXII ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
PRESENT: SRI.JAI SHANKAR.J,
B.A.L., LL.B
XXII ADDL.C.J.M., BENGALURU.
DATED: THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2026
JUDGMENT U/s.278(2) of BNSS -2023
(OLD CORRESPONDENCE NO. 255(2) OF CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
C.C.NO. : 2924/2021
COMPLAINANT : Sri. G.S. Nagaraju,
S/o. Sri. Siddaiah,
Aged about 51 years,
R/at No. 71/7,
Janatha Colony,
2
C.C.No.2924/2021
Mariyappana Palya,
Jnanabharathi Post,
Bengaluru - 560056.
(By Sri. B.Ravindranath., Adv.,)
V/s.
ACCUSED : Sri. Lokesh,
S/o. Late Sanna Marigowda,
C/o. Sri. Gendeyara Karigowda,
Heggadahalli Village,
Kasaba Hobli,
Pandavapura Taluk,
Mandya District
And also
Sri. Lokesh,
S/o. Late Sanna Marigowda,
R/at Hosahundi Village,
Aged about 38 years,
Kasaba Hobli,
Ring Road Circle,
Mysuru -10.
(By Sri. G.K. Gopal., Adv., )
Offence complained of : U/s.138 of N.I.Act
Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Accused is Convicted
Date of order : 10.04.2026
3
C.C.No.2924/2021
JUDGMENT
This is a private complaint filed by the complainant
against the accused for the offence punishable under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is as
under:
It is contended that, the accused and the complainant
being relative, the accused has approached the complainant
in the month of September 2018 for the hand loan of Rs.5
lakhs to overcome his urgent legal and family necessities.
Considering the request of the accused, the complainant has
advanced Rs.5 lakhs on 12.09.2018 on the assurance that,
he would repay the amount within 15 months. The accused
has also issued the cheque bearing No.781163, dt:
14.01.2020 for Rs.5 lakhs, drawn on Cauveri Gramina
4C.C.No.2924/2021
Bank, Hosahundi Branch, SGS Ashram, Mysore Taluk and
District, assuring that, on its presentation, it would be
honored. Believing the representation, when the
complainant presented the cheque through his banker
ie., Canara Bank, Nayandahalli Mysore Road, Sai Branch, it
dishonored with shara as “Funds Insufficient”
dt:17.01.2020. Thereby, the complainant got issued the
demand notice dt:30.01.2020 through RPAD, which served
on the accused. Despite which, he has not chosen to comply
it, which has given cause of action to file the present
complaint.
3. After filing of the complaint, this court has taken
cognizance of the offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I.Act.
Sworn statement of the complainant was recorded. Being
satisfied that, there are prima-facie materials to proceed
5
C.C.No.2924/2021
against accused, summons was issued. After appearance of
the accused, he was enlarged on bail and plea was recorded.
The accused has not pleaded guilty, but submitted that, he
would go for the trial.
4. From the basis of the pleadings, the following
points that arise for my consideration are as follows:-
1. Whether the complainant proves that, the
accused issued cheque bearing No.781163,
dt:14.01.2020 for Rs.5 lakhs, drawn on
Cauveri Gramina Bank, Hosahundi
Branch, SGS Ashram, Mysore Taluk and
District, towards discharge of his liability
which was returned unpaid on presentation for
the reason “Funds Insufficient” and despite
of knowledge of the notice, he has not paid
the said cheque amount and thereby,
committed an offence punishable U/s.138 of
N.I.Act?
2. What order?
6
C.C.No.2924/2021
5. The sworn statement and the documents marked
at Ex.P.1 to P.7 by the complainant is being treated as the
complainant evidence as per the decision of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in Indian Bank Association Vs. Union of India
and Ors., reported in 2010 (5) SCC 590. The complainant
also got further examined by marking Ex.P.8 to P.15
documents and closed his side evidence. The statement of
the accused as required U/s.313 of Cr.P.C is also being
recorded, wherein the accused has denied the incriminating
evidence appeared against him and submitted that, he has
the evidence and accordingly, he is being examined as DW.1
and closed his side evidence. The Ex.P.16 to P.22 were got
marked through the confrontation of DW.1. However, Ex.D.1
document got marked through the confrontation of the
PW.1.
7
C.C.No.2924/2021
6. Heard from both side. Accused has relied upon the
decision reported in 2023 (1) KCCR 83 – Annapoorna Vs.
S.P. Nandish, which is dealt on the point of rebuttable
presumption.
7. Perused the materials available on record.
8. My answer to the aforesaid points are as under:-
Point No.1 :- In the Affirmative
Point No.2 :- As per the final order, for the following:-
REASONS
9. Point No.1:- The complainant has filed this
complaint alleging that, the accused has committed an
offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I.Act. He pleads and
asserts that, the accused in discharge of his liability, has
issued the cheque bearing No.781163, dt:14.01.2020 for
Rs.5 lakhs, drawn on Cauveri Gramina Bank, Hosahundi
8
C.C.No.2924/2021
Branch, SGS Ashram, Mysore Taluk and District, which is
being dishonored with shara as “Funds Insufficient”.
Thereby, he got issued the legal notice which served on the
accused and despite which, he has not chosen to comply it,
which has given a cause of action to file the complaint.
10. In this scenario, if the documents placed by the
complainant is scrutinized, the complainant in order to
examine the compliance of statutory requirements as
envisaged U/s.138 of NI Act, he got produced the Ex.P.1 the
cheque dt:14.01.2020. The said cheque is returned with
an endorsement as Funds Insufficient as per Ex.P2, the
return advise dt:17.01.2020 . The Ex.P.3 is the office copy of
the legal notice dt:30.01.2020, Ex.P.4 & 5 are the postal
receipts and Ex.P.6 is the postal acknowledgment which
indicates the service as dt:04.02.2020. The present
9
C.C.No.2924/2021
complaint is filed on 11.03.2020. A careful scrutiny of the
documents relied by the complainant goes to show that, a
statutory requirement of Sec.138 of N.I. Act is being
complied with and this complaint is filed well in time. The
complainant has discharged his initial burden by examining
him as PW.1 and by producing the documents as referred
above. Thus, complainant is entitled to rely on the statutory
presumptions enshrined U/s.118 R/w. Sec. 138 of N.I.Act.
Sec. 118 of the Act reads as thus, that every Negotiable
Instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that,
every such instrument when it has been accepted, endorsed,
negotiated or transferred was accepted, endorsed, negotiated
or transferred for consideration.
Further Sec.139 of Negotiable Instrument Act provides
for presumption infavour of PA holder. It reads like this, it
shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that, the
10
C.C.No.2924/2021
holder of a cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred
to in Sec. 138, for the discharge, in whole or in part, or any
debt or any other liability.
11. A combined reading of the referred sections raises
a presumption infavour of the holder of the cheque that, he
has received the same for discharge in whole or in part of
any debt or other liability. No doubt, the said presumptions
of law are rebuttable in nature, the accused can take
probable defense in the scale of preponderance of
probabilities to rebut the presumption available to the
complainant.
12. Here, the complainant claim that, as the accused
was his relative had approached for the hand loan of Rs.5
lakhs to overcome his financial crisis and therefore,
considering the acquittance and the request, he has
11
C.C.No.2924/2021
advanced Rs.5 lakhs on 12.09.2018. The accused has
assured to return back within 15 months and towards the
repayment of the loan amount, he had issued the disputed
cheque at Ex.P.1 which is being dishonored. It is also his
case that, the accused is well within the knowledge of the
dishonour of the cheque and so also, he had issued the
demand notice at Ex.P.3, intimating the dishonour of the
cheque and also, of he demanding the cheque amount
which was served on the accused as per Ex.P.6 and inspite
of which, he has not chosen to comply his request which
itself suffices of he complying the mandatory provision of
Sec.138 of N.I.Act and claims that, he is entitled to claim
the benefit of Sec.138 of N.I.Act. On the other hand, though
the accused would admit the acquittance of the
complainant as a relative and so also, would admit the
disputed cheque at Ex.P.1 and the signature appearing
12
C.C.No.2924/2021
therein belongs to him and it being dishonored as per
Ex.P.2, but he totally denies the loan transaction for Rs.5
lakhs and also denies of he issuing the disputed cheque for
the said liability. He also questions the financial capacity of
the complainant and contends that, as he is carrying on the
business of the supply of the materials for construction,
the complainant was also carrying on the construction work
in Bangalore and he had supplied the construction
materials to the complainant. He had also transported the
Sand to the complainant through one Muthuraju to whom
he had handed over the blank signed disputed cheque
towards the security purpose, which he has handed over the
to the complainant who inturn has misused it by filling the
contents and has filed the present complaint. He also takes
a contention of the complainant having issued a cheque
for Rs.8,70,000/- for having acknowledged the supply of the
13
C.C.No.2924/2021
construction materials which is being dishonored and he
had also, filed a complaint in CC. No.6956/2019 before the
court of 4th Addl.Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysore which is
being convicted and so also, a civil suit in O.S.No.
851/2022 for the recovery of the cheque amount and having
he got a conviction judgment, the complainant with an
intention to avoid the conviction and to harass him, has
created a false case and has filed the present complaint with
an intention to gain unlawfully, contends that, he has
rebutted the presumption.
13. So, from the rival claims of the parties, it
evidences that, there is no dispute with regard to the
acquittance of the parties. The accused would admit that,
he is the son of one Smt. Sarojamma who is none other
than the aunt of the complainant’s wife. It also evidences
14
C.C.No.2924/2021
that, the accused has filed a cheque bounce case against
the complainant in CC.No.6956/2019 before the court of
4th Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC at Mysuru, which is being
convicted to pay a fine amount of Rs.8,70,000/- and the
complainant being aggrieved by the conviction judgment,
has preferred an appeal in Crl. Appeal No.297/2024 which
is being allowed and the conviction order is being set aside.
This fact could also be asserted from the judgment in Crl.
Appeal No.297/2024 at Ex.P.18. The accused owning a
firm called Veerabhadreshwara Traders at Mysuru also
cannot be denied, as the complainant himself has referred
the entity of the accused firm in the cause title of Ex.P.18.
It could be asserted that, having the complainant admitted
the entity of the accused firm, it suffices the accused
carrying on the business of the supply of the construction
materials in the referred address of the firm. So, here the
15
C.C.No.2924/2021
dispute could be understood is with respect to the supply
of the construction materials to the complainant for putting
up the construction in his site as contended by the accused
and of the loan transaction for Rs.5 lakhs and the issuance
of the cheque towards the said liability as claimed by the
complainant.
14. The complainant would claim that, he had
advanced Rs. 5 lakhs by way of a cash on 12.09.2018. But,
however the accused would not only dispute the receipt of
Rs.5 lakhs, but would also question the very financial
capacity of the complainant to advance Rs. 5 lakhs. The
complainant claims that, he is an income tax assessee and
he would also claim that, he has raised the housing loan of
Rs.28 lakhs from the LIC housing board and so also, he
has received Rs. 14 lakhs from his younger brother for
16
C.C.No.2924/2021
releasing his share from the family property. He claims that,
the amount of Rs. 5 lakhs advanced to the accused is a part
of the housing loan availed from LIC Housing board.
Though, the accused would deny the receipt of amount by
questioning the financial capacity of the complainant, but
he would not deny the complainant availing the loan facility
as referred above. Perhaps, the complainant is also an
income tax assessee which would found from I.T. returns
produced at Ex.P.13 to P.15 and so also, the certificate
issued by LIC Ex.P.12 for having advanced the housing
loan to the complainant. These documents would evidence
the financial capacity of the complainant. Perhaps, the
Ex.P.8 the bank statement would also evidence an amount
of Rs.5 lakhs being withdrawn by the complainant on
12.09.2018. Though, many questions were posed to the
complainant questioning the complainant having colluded
17
C.C.No.2924/2021
with the bank and having created the document to pretend
his financial capacity, but to appreciate the said defence,
the accused has neither chosen to place a probable
evidence to disprove the said evidence or has chosen to
elicit any favorable answer from the mouth of the PW.1 to
appreciate his defence. So, therefore, it could be said that,
the complainant was financially well to advance Rs. 5 lakhs.
15. It is an admitted fact that, apart from the disputed
cheque at Ex.P.1, there is no any other document on which
the complainant has placed his reliance to establish the
loan transaction. Here, it cannot be denied that, the
disputed cheque at Ex.P.1 and the signature appearing
therein does belongs to the accused. Here, the complainant
claim that, as the accused was his relative, considering his
acquittance, has advanced Rs. 5 lakhs through cash on the
18
C.C.No.2924/2021
assurance that, he would return the said amount within 15
months. In other words, the complainant claim that, he has
collected only the disputed cheque and his entire claim is
based only on the disputed cheque. Here, it is relevant to
note that, when the accused has disputed the loan
transaction, the burden would be upon the complainant to
establish the said transaction. No doubt, the complainant
was able to establish his financial capacity to advance
Rs.5 lakhs, but he is required to establish the loan
transaction, when more particularly the accused has
disputed the transaction.
16. As said above, apart from the disputed cheque,
there is no other documentary evidence pertaining to the
loan transaction. It is an admitted fact that, the accused is
an relative of the complainant and so also, the evidence
19
C.C.No.2924/2021
would indicate that, there was a previous litigation between
the complainant and the accused and the complainant is
being acquitted as per Ex.P.18. Here, the bank statement at
Ex.P.9 would also indicate that, there appears to be some
other financial transaction which is also admitted by both
parties. Perhaps, the accused claim that, he has advanced
Rs.3,05,000/- through the cheque from his firm which is
not being repaid by him. But, however the complainant
would claim that, he has transferred the said amount on
the very same day and also, on the next day. The Ex.P.9
would also indicate an amount of Rs.3,05,000/- being
debited to the account of the complainant on 21.09.2019
and in turn the complainant re-transferring Rs. 3 lakhs
through the cheque on the very same date and transferring
Rs. 5,000/- on 22.09.2019. Anyhow, it is an admitted fact
that, this recitals would indicate that, there was some
20
C.C.No.2924/2021
financial transaction which cannot be brushed aside. As
said above, the accused has filed a cheque bounce case
against the complainant in C.C.No.6956/2019 in which the
complainant would not deny the receipt of demand notice
issued by the accused. The accused would emphasize on
the fact that, the complainant having not disclosed the
alleged present loan transaction in the reply notice issued in
C.C.No.6956/2019 or the complainant having no
impediment to refuse to return back the amount of Rs.
3,05,000/- as found in Ex.P.9, if really there was a loan
transaction as pleaded in the complaint. The accused by
emphasizing this defence, he intends to establish that, the
entire story pleaded in the complaint is a created one only
to avoid the liability under the cheque produced in
CC.No.6956/2019 and to harass him. It is not in dispute
that, even the complainant would not deny the fact of he not
21
C.C.No.2924/2021
disclosing the present loan transaction in the reply notice
issued in C.C.No.6956/2019 and he would also not deny
the credit of Rs.3,05,000/- by the accused on 21.09.2019.
But, however he would contend that, as he was not aware of
the fact to be mentioned about the loan transaction in the
reply notice and as the accused had assured that, he would
return back the amount within a year, he had not chosen to
withhold the deposited amount towards the present loan
transaction.
17. Here, the evidence of the complainant as referred
above also makes some sense so as to appreciate his case.
Because, as said above, the accused is not stranger, rather
he is an relative. Expecting a document pertaining to the
loan transaction or he withholding the deposited amount
pertaining to present loan transaction as defended by the
accused appears to be unacceptable. Perhaps, the
22
C.C.No.2924/2021
complainant ought to have disclosed the present loan
transaction in his reply notice. When the complainant
claims that, he had no knowledge of the fact to be pleaded
in the reply notice, this court do not find much force from
the defence so as to doubt the credibility of the complainant
evidence. No doubt, the complainant has not chosen to
disclose the loan transaction in the reply notice nor has
chosen to withhold the deposited amount as raised by the
defence, but even the defence raised by the accused also
makes more probable so as to appreciate the complainant
case. Because, the above referred proceeding would indicate
that, the accused is having some knowledge of the legal
proceeding.
18. The demand notice at Ex.P.3 is being served on
the accused which could be found from the postal
acknowledgment marked at Ex.P.6. Though, the accused
23
C.C.No.2924/2021
would deny the signature found therein, but by gathering
the conduct of the accused with the signature found in the
postal acknowledgment with the signatures found in the
evidences/record, it would indicate that, the accused has
not approached the court with the clean hand. He claims
that, he used to sign only in Kannada language. The postal
acknowledgment at Ex.P.6, would indicate the signature of
the accused is in English. The signature in the disputed
cheque at Ex.P.1 also found in the English language. While
recording the plea as well as the statement U/s.313 of
Cr.P.C., he has signed in the English language. But,
however while signing his chief evidence, he has signed it in
Kannada language. So, it indicates that, the accused is in
the habit of signing in English as well as in Kannada
language. He would not dispute the address found in
Ex.P.6. The address referred in Ex.P.6 is the very address
24
C.C.No.2924/2021
found in the cause title of the complaint. When the accused
would take a contention that, he had never signed the
acknowledgment at Ex.P.6 and it is being forged by the
complainant, nothing had prevented him to take the
assistance of the postal department in establishing the said
defence. Perhaps, by comparing the signature of the
accused in the disputed cheque with the postal
acknowledgment at Ex.P.6, it would suffice that, it is the
signature of the accused and it is being served on the
accused.
19. When the Ex.P.6 would indicate the service of
demand notice, the accused ought to have replied the
demand notice by taking his defence. He would take a
contention that, he had handed over the disputed cheque to
one Muthuraju towards the security purpose for having
supplied the sand to the complainant in putting up the
25
C.C.No.2924/2021
construction. Either, the accused was able to establish the
fact of he supplying the construction materials or sand to
the complainant through the said Muthuraju or he handing
over the disputed cheque to the said Muthuraju. Except,
the accused referring the name as Muthuraju, either he has
chosen to disclose the entire particulars of the said
Muthuraju or chosen to disclose the whereabouts of the
said Muthuraju. There is no proof forthcoming to establish
the fact of he handing over the disputed cheque to the said
Muthuraju. He could have examined the said Muthuraju
which is also not forthcoming. No doubt, he claim that, the
said Muthuraju was the resident of Bidadi and was carrying
on the business of the sale of cloths at Bidadi, but again,
he has not specifically furnished his address. No doubt, he
would also claim that, he used to contact the Muthuraju
through phone call, again he has not chosen to furnish the
26
C.C.No.2924/2021
phone number of the Muthuraju which also creates a
serious doubt so far the existence of the Muthuraju is
concerned. Perhaps, the complainant has emphasized by
taking contention that, the said Muthuraju is not in
existence and he is a created story only to avoid the liability
of the cheque. Absolutely, there is no evidence placed by the
accused to accept the existence of the said Muthuraju or he
handing over the disputed cheque to the said Muthuraju in
some other transaction.
20. For a moment, if it is construed that, the accused
has handed over the disputed signed blank cheque to the
Muthuraju in some other transaction, nothing had
prevented him to mention the name of Muthuraju in the
cheque, rather issuing so called blank cheque. Even,
nothing had prevented the accused to initiate some legal
27
C.C.No.2924/2021
action either against the said Muthuraju or against the
complainant for allegedly misusing the cheque. The accused
would also claim that, the said Muthuraju used to issue the
bills and he has no impediment in producing it. The said
bills would have supported the defence case. Again, he has
neither chosen to produce it nor chosen to establish the
said defence by any other mode. Perhaps, when he was so
particular that, he had issued the disputed cheque to the
said Muthuraju in a business of the supply of Sand and
the transaction is being concluded without there being no
due, he could have demanded the return of the cheque from
the Muthuraju or he could have requested his bank to stop
the payment of the cheque by disclosing his defence. But,
rather the Ex.P.2 would indicate the disputed cheque being
dishonored for want of sufficient funds. So, here the
defence raised by the accused creates a serious doubt. As
28
C.C.No.2924/2021
said above, when the demand notice at Ex.P.3 is being
served on him, he ought to have replied the demand notice
by taking this defence which admittedly not forthcoming. In
the decision reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Kar.2117-
V.R.Shresti Vs., Bhaskar.P., wherein the Hon’ble High
court has opined that, if really the accused had no
transaction with the complainant, he would have given
reply to the notice and not replying the same would go to
establish that, the defence made is false and the court
should draw the presumption against the accused for not
replying the legal notice. The decision aptly applies to the
case in hand. Not replying the notice at the initial stage
would hold no water so far the defence case is concerned.
In this back ground, an inference could be drawn that,
having the accused failed to establish his defence, more
particularly the issuance of the cheque to the Muthuraju,
29
C.C.No.2924/2021
certainly the case of the complainant with regard to the loan
transaction and the issuance of the disputed cheque to the
complainant has to be accepted. The complainant was able
to establish his financial capacity to advance Rs.5 lakhs.
The accused is a relative which also suffices that, there was
a possibility for not reducing the loan transaction in the
writing and this fact is being established by the
complainant.
21. In the decision reported in (2021) 5 SCC 283 –
Kalamani Tex and Another., Vs. P.Balasubramanian,
(2010) 11 SCC 441- Rangappa Vs. Sri.Mohan., Wherein
it is held that, when once the signature of an accused on
the cheque is established, than the reverse onus clauses
become operative, also aptly applies to the case in hand.
When the complainant has established the accused having
issued the cheque at Ex.P.1 towards the discharge of loan
30
C.C.No.2924/2021
liability and their existed a legally enforceable debt, the
onus to disprove it, shifts on the accused which is not been
proved by placing positive evidence. In this background,
having the accused not disputed the complainant case by
placing positive evidence, this court is of the considered
view that, the cheque issued by the accused at Ex.P.1 is for
the legally enforceable debt and this fact is being
established by the complainant by placing cogent and
positive evidence which is not rebutted by the other side.
22. As said above, the accused has not disputed
the cheque does pertains to him. It could be said that, the
accused has not disputed the cheque in question and
signature found therein. When the drawer has admitted the
issuance of cheque therein, the presumption envisaged
U/s.118 R/w.139 of N.I.Act would operate infavour of the
31
C.C.No.2924/2021
complainant. The said provisions lies on a special rule of
evidence applicable to negotiable instruments. The
presumption is one of law and thereunder the court shall
presume that, the instrument was endorsed for
consideration. So also, in the absence of contrary evidence
on behalf of the accused, the presumption U/s.118 of
N.I.Act goes in favour of the complainant. No doubt, as said
statutory presumptions are rebuttable in nature, but when
the complainant has relied upon the statutory
presumptions enshrined U/s.118 R/w.Sec.139 of N.I.Act, it
is for the accused to rebut the presumption with cogent and
convincing evidence. To put it in other way, the burden lies
upon the accused to prove the cheque in question at Ex.P.1
was not issued for the discharge of debt or liability.
32
C.C.No.2924/2021
23. It is worth to note that, Sec.106 of Indian
Evidence Act postulates that, the burden is on the accused
to establish the fact which is especially within its
knowledge. This provision is exception to the general rule
that, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution to
establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt. In that view
of matter, the burden is on the accused to prove that, the
cheque in question was not issued for discharge of any
liability. But, despite the accused has taken the defence
that, the Ex.P.1 was not issued towards the legal liability,
but the said fact and the version is not been established. No
doubt, the accused would contend that, the contents found
in Ex.P.1 was being reduced by the complainant, but when
the complainant was able to establish his case, the
complainant is being protected U/s. 20 of N.I.Act.
33
C.C.No.2924/2021
24. From the discussion made supra, it could be said
that, the complainant has established his case by placing
positive evidence. On the other hand, the accused failed to
to establish his defence by placing probable defence and
also, failed to elicit the said fact from the mouth of the
PW.1. To put it in other way, the accused though taken a
probable defence, but it is not been established by placing
the positive evidence. The presumption of law lies in favour
of the complainant as envisaged U/s.118 R/w. Sec. 139 of
N.I.Act. In this back ground, the case of the complainant
requires to be accepted. Nodoubt, the principles enumerated
in the decision relied by the accused cannot be denied, but
having the accused failed to rebut the presumption, with
due respect, the said decision is not applicable to the case
in hand. The evidence placed on record establishes that, the
complainant has proved that, for discharge of the legal
34
C.C.No.2924/2021
liability, the accused has issued Ex.P1 and it is being
dishonored as per Ex.P2. Therefore, Point No.1 is answered
in the “Affirmative’.
25. Point No.2:- For the reasons discussed in the
point No.1, the complainant has proved the guilt of the
accused punishable U/s.138 of N.I.Act. The Hon’ble Apex
Court also dealt in the decision reported in (2018) 1 SCC
560, M/s. Meters and Instrument Pvt. Ltd., Vs.
Kanchana Mehta., wherein, It is held that “the object of
provision being primarily compensatory, punitive element
being mainly with the object of enforcing the compensatory
element, compounding at the initial stage has to be
encouraged, but is not debarred at the later stage subject to
appropriate compensation has may be found acceptable to
the parties or the court”. By considering the decision, it
could be said that, the time when the transaction has taken
35
C.C.No.2924/2021
place and the primary object of the provision being kept in
mind, I am of the considered view that rather imposing
punitive sentence, if sentence of fine is imposed with a
direction to compensate the complainant for its monetary
loss by awarding compensation U/s.357 of Cr.P.C., it
would meet the ends of justice. By considering these
aspects, I am of the considered view that, it would be just
and proper to impose fine of Rs.5,05,000/-. Out of the
compensation of Rs.5,05,000/-, an amount of
Rs.5,00,000/-, shall be awarded to the complainant
U/s.357 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the
following :
ORDER
Acting U/s.278(2) of BNSS -2023
(Old Correspondence No. 255(2) of Code of
Criminal Procedure), the accused is convicted for
the offence punishable under section 138 of the
36C.C.No.2924/2021
Negotiable Instruments Act, the accused is
sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,05,000/- (Rupees
Five Lakhs and Five Thousand only).
In default thereof, the accused shall undergo
simple imprisonment for the term of one year.
Acting U/s. 396 of BNSS – 2023 (Old
Correspondence No.357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C), it is
ordered that, Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs
only), there from shall be paid to the complainant
as compensation. The remaining fine amount of
Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) is
defrayed to the state for the expenses incurred in
the prosecution.
The office is to furnish the free copy of this
Judgment to the accused forthwith.
(Directly dictated to stenographer on computer, typed by her, revised by me and
then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10th day of April 2026).
Digitally signed
JAI by JAI SHANKAR
SHANKAR J
Date: 2026.04.10
J 16:07:53 +0530
(JAI SHANKAR.J)
XXII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bengaluru.
37
C.C.No.2924/2021
ANNEXURE
List of witnesses examined on behalf of complainant:-
PW.1 : Sri. G.S. Nagaraju
List of exhibits marked on behalf of complainant:-
Ex.P.1 : Original cheque
Ex.P1(a) : Signature of the accused
Ex.P2 : Bank Memo
Ex.P3 : Legal notice
Ex.P4 & 5 : Postal receipts
Ex.P6 : Postal acknowledgment
Ex.P7 : Postal Cover
Ex.P8 to P.11 : Bank Statements
Ex.P12 ; Interest Certificate issued by LIC
Ex.P13 to 15 : I.T. Returns
Ex.P16 : Certified copy of Order sheet in
Crl.A No.297/2024
Ex.P17 : Certified copy of Orders in
Crl. Appl. No.297/2024
Ex.P18 : Copy of Judgment in
Crl.Appeal No.297/2024
38
C.C.No.2924/2021
Ex.P19 & 20 : Certified copies of the Depositions in
CC. No.6956/2019
Ex.P21 : Certified copy of Depositions in
C.Misc. 97/2013
Ex.P22 : FIR
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the accused:-
DW.1 : Sri. Lokesh
List of exhibits marked on behalf of the accused:-
Ex.D.1 : Certiified copy of the depositions in
CC. No. 6956/2019
Digitally
signed by JAI
JAI SHANKAR J
SHANKAR Date:
J 2026.04.10
16:07:59
+0530
(JAI SHANKAR.J)
XXII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bengaluru.
39
C.C.No.2924/2021