Bangalore District Court
M /S Ninjacart Service Pvt Ltd vs Sps Trading Company on 10 April, 2026
KABC030428112025
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE CITY
Dated this the 10th day of April, 2026
Present : SRI. GOKULA. K
B.A.LL.B.
XXV Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bangalore City.
C.C.No.25162/2025
Complainant : M/s Ninjacart Services Private Limited
R/o Helios Business Park
E Block, 2nd floor,
Opp: New Horizon College Bus stop
Service Road,
Kadabeesanahalli,
Bengaluru 560 103.
Rep by its Associate Manager
Mr.Adarsh R.
(By SGA Advocate )
V/s
Accused : M/s.SPS Trading Company
Rep by Krishnan Pavithra
B102, KRK Nest Apartment
Nehru Nagar
Near Lemon Sports Club,
Tiruppur
Kangayampalayam,
Tamil Nadu,
India 641 401.
(By PS - Advocate )
Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty
2
C.C.No.25162/2025
Final Order: Accused is Convicted
Date of judgment 10.04.2026
JUDGMENT
The complainant has filed the complaint under Section 223
of Bharathiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhitha 2023 against the
accused for the offences punishable under Section 25 of The
Payment and Settlement Systems Act 2007 r/w Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The brief case of the complainant is as under:
That the complainant is involved in the business of
wholesale trading of agricultural products and fresh produce
supply. The complainant is tied up with Non Banking Financial
Institution and enables service of credit facility to its borrowers.
That Trillionloans Fintech Private Limited has entered a
partnership agreement with the complainant and authorizes the
complainant to act as agent on behalf of Trillionloans Fintech
Private Limited. The accused engaged in the business of whole
sale trade and agricultural products and commission agency.
The accused applied for loan before the complainant, through
Trillionloans Fintech Private Limited in loan application
No.231164 and the complainant extended credit facility to the
accused for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- out of which the accused
availed sum of Rs.20,00,000/-. Since the accused had applied
3
C.C.No.25162/2025loan in online platform, she has also signed the loan agreement
and other documents digitally. During the process of loan
transaction, the accused issued signed NACH bearing UMRN
No.ICIC7020308244000066 on 02.08.2024 drawn on ICICI
Bank for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-. After availing the loan, the
accused assured to make payment, later the accused failed to
make payment as per the agreement. Hence, the complainant
has processed NACH mandate through its banker AU Small
Finance Bank, Koramangala for a outstanding sum of
Rs.21,92,000/- and on processing said E NACH Mandate, it is
returned dishonored with remarks “Balance Insufficient” on
03.05.2025. On receipt of said intimation, the complainant got
issued legal notice on 27.05.2025 through registered post and
demanded to pay the amount dishonoured under E-NACH
Mandate. The notice issued to the accused is duly served on the
accused on 30.05.2025. Inspite of issuance of notice, the
accused failed to pay the claim amount to the complainant with
in the statutory time. Therefore, the accused has committed the
offence punishable Section 25 of the Payment and Settlement
Systems Act 2007 r/w Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act. Therefore the complainant has filed the complaint.
3. On the basis of Private complaint filed by the complainant,
this court taken cognizance of offence and registered the case in
PCR No.10808/2025 and recorded sworn statement of the
4
C.C.No.25162/2025
authorized officer of complainant as PW 1 and got marked 10
documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P.10. This court by considering the
material on record issued process under Section 227 of
Bharathiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita by registering the
criminal case. In response to the process issued by this court,
the accused appeared before this court and she is released on
bail. The copy of the complaint is served to the accused along
with the summons as contemplated under Section 230 of
Bharathiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita.
[
4. The substance of the acquisition as provided Section 274
of Bharathiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita is read over to the
accused and plea is recorded. The accused has pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. 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. As the evidence of the complainant is on
record the incriminating circumstances in the evidence of the
complainant is read over to the accused and her statement
under Section 351 of BNSS is recorded. The accused has denied
the same as false. On the application of the accused, PW1 is
5
C.C.No.25162/2025
recalled and he is examined in full. The complainant got marked
additional documents as Ex.P.11 to Ex.P.14. The accused is
examined as DW 1 and examined one witness as DW 2 and she
has produced documents as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.7.
6. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the complainant and
Arguments of learned counsel for the accused and perused the
material on record.
7. On the basis of the material on record following points arise
for the consideration of this court :
1. Whether the complainant proves beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused has issued
NACH Mandate bearing NACH bearing UMRN
No.ICIC7020308244000066 on 02.08.2024 drawn
on ICICI Bank for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- in
favour of the complainant and on processing for
collection of balance amount of Rs.21,92,000/- it
is dishonoured for the reason “Balance
Insufficient” on 03.05.2025 and inspite of service
of demand notice dated 27.05.2025 on
30.05.2025, the accused failed to repay the
amount with in the statutory period and thus
committed an offence punishable under Section
25 of The Payment and Settlement Systems Act
r/w Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act ?
2. What Order or Sentence?
6
C.C.No.25162/2025
8. 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
9. POINT NO.1: To prove the case the authorized representative
of the complainant is examined as PW-1 and in his evidence
affidavit he has reiterated the averments made in the complaint.
The complainant is a company incorporated under Companies
Act which is tied up with NBFC, the Trillion Loans Fine Tech
limited, facilitating loan facility as a assignee. To prove the
incorporation of the company the PW 1 has produced the
notarized copy of certificate of incorporation as Ex.P 1. The PW
1 has produced the notarized Copy of Resolution of Board of
Directors of the company as Ex.P 2. The PW 1 has also
produced the authorization letter issued by Trillion loans as
Ex.P.3. As per Ex.P 2 and Ex.P3, the PW1 is authorized to
represent the complainant company and prosecute the cases
filed by the complainant. These documents prove the legal
status of the complainant as a Company and authority of PW 1
to represent the complainant company.
10. The PW 1 has deposed that the accused applied for loan
before the complainant through Trillionloans Fintech Private
Limited in loan application No.231164 and the complainant
extended credit facility to the accused for a sum of
7
C.C.No.25162/2025
Rs.50,00,000/- out of which the accused availed sum of
Rs.20,00,000/- . Since the accused had applied loan in online
platform, he has also signed the loan agreement and other
documents digitally. Pw 1 has produced said loan documents
as Ex.P 4. In the sanction letter there is clear authorization by
Trillion Loans fine-tech pvt Ltd to the complainant to recover
the loan and also process the NACH mandate or any other
mandate on behalf of Trillion Loans. The PW 1 further deposed
that during the process of loan transaction the accused issued
signed NACH mandate bearing UMRN No.
ICIC7020308244000066 on 02.08.2024 drawn on ICICI Bank
for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- in favour of the complainant
towards due discharge of debt/liability. The complainant has
produced the E copy of the NACH Mandate as Ex.P 5. He has
deposed that initially the accused made regular payments and
later the accused failed to make payment as per the agreement,
hence, complainant has processed E-NACH mandate through
their banker AU Small Finance Bank, Koramangala for a
outstanding sum of Rs.21,92,000/-and on processing said E
NACH Mandate, it is returned dishonored with remarks
“Balance Insufficient” 03-05-2025. The complainant has also
produced the loan statement as Ex.P 13. which shows that
outstanding due amount as on 10-12-2025 is Rs.28,33,753/-.
The PW 1 has produced the debit transaction return memo as
8
C.C.No.25162/2025
Ex.P 6. The PW1 has deposed that they have got issued legal
notice dated 27.05.2025 calling upon the accused to pay the
due amount as per Ex.P7. The PW 1 has deposed that said
notice is duly served on the accused on 30.05.2025. Evidencing
the same, PW 1 has also produced the postal receipt and the
postal track consignment as Ex.P 8 and Ex.P 9. He has
deposed that inspite of service of demand notice the accused
has not paid the amount and thus committed the offence.
11. The offence alleged is primarily under Section 25 of The
Payment and Settlement Systems Act 2007, which reads as
under.
Section 25. Dishonour of electronic funds transfer for
insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account.
(1) Where an electronic funds transfer initiated by a person from
an account maintained by him cannot be executed on the ground
that the amount of money standing to the credit of that account
is insufficient to honour the transfer instruction or that it
exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an
agreement made with a 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 extend to two years, or with fine which may
extend to twice the amount of the electronic funds transfer, or
with both:
Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply
unless–
(a) the electronic funds transfer was initiated for payment of any
amount of money to another person for the discharge, in whole
or in part, of any debt or other liability;
9
C.C.No.25162/2025
(b) the electronic funds transfer was initiated in accordance with
the relevant procedural guidelines issued by the system provider;
(c) the beneficiary makes a demand for the payment of the said
amount of money by giving a notice in writing to the person
initiating the electronic funds transfer within thirty days of the
receipt of information by him from the bank concerned regarding
the dishonour of the electronic funds transfer; and
(d) the person initiating the electronic funds transfer fails to
make the payment of the said money to the beneficiary within
fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.
(2) It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the
electronic funds transfer was initiated for the discharge, in whole
or in part, of any debt or other liability.
(3) It shall not be a defence in a prosecution for an offence under
sub-section (1) that the person, who initiated the electronic
funds transfer through an instruction, authorisation, order or
agreement, did not have reason to believe at the time of such
instruction, authorisation, order or agreement that the credit of
his account is insufficient to effect the electronic funds transfer.
(4) The Court shall, in respect of every proceeding under this
section, on production of a communication from the bank
denoting the dishonour of electronic funds transfer, presume the
fact of dishonour of such electronic funds transfer, unless and
until such fact is disproved.
(5) The provisions of Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881 (26 of 1881) shall apply to the dishonour of electronic
funds transfer to the extent the circumstances admit.
Explanation.–For the purposes of this section, “debt or other
liability” means a legally enforceable debt or other liability, as the
case may be.
12. This provision also specify that the provisions of chapter
XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act to the extent the
circumstances admit is applicable. The essential ingredients of
section 25 of The Payment and Settlement Systems Act 2007 to
be complied are i) An electronic fund transfer initiated by the
10
C.C.No.25162/2025
person from his account ii) Processing of the NACH Mandate by
the beneficiary, iii) it returning unexecuted for the reason
insufficiency of funds to honour transfer instructions. iv)
electronic fund transfer was initiated in discharge of any debt or
liability v) it is initiated in accordance with the relevant
procedural guidelines issued by the service provider vi)
Beneficiary making demand with in 30 days of receipt of
information of dishonour by giving notice in writing, vii) failure
of the person initiating electronic fund transfer to make
payment within the period of 15 days after receipt of the
demand notice. The Payment and Settlement Systems Act 2007
does not prescribe any time limit to file the complaint. Therefore
it is necessary to apply provisions of Section 142 of The
Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore the complainant shall
present the complaint within a month after expiry of 15 days of
service of notice to the accused. Therefore it is proper to
consider whether the statutory requirements for constituting
offence under Section 25 of he Payment and Settlement Systems
Act 2007 r/w Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is
complied by the complainant.
13. The NACH mandate is dishonoured on 03-05-2025, the legal
notice is issued on 27-05-2025. It is duly served on 30.05.2025.
Therefore cause of action arise for prosecution of the accused on
expiry of 15 days of service of notice on 14-06-2025. The
11
C.C.No.25162/2025
complaint is filed before this court on 08-07.2025. Thus the
complainant has complied all the statutory requirements under
Section 25 of Payment and Settlement Systems Act. As provided
under Section 25(4) of The Payment and Settlement Systems Act
and also under Section 146 of Negotiable Instruments Act law
presumes that on production of banker slip or memo having
thereon the official mark denoting that the cheque/ electronic
fund transfer has been dishonored, presume the fact of
dishonor of such said cheque, unless and until same is
disproved. In the cross examination the accused has not denied
execution of E-NACH mandate or dishonour of the same as per
Ex.P5. The accused has not disputed service of demand notice
and also not issued any reply notice. Inspite of service of notice,
the accused failed to pay the claim amount to the complainant
with in the statutory time. Thus the complainant has complied
all the statutory requirements for constitution of offence under
Section 25 of The Payment and Settlement Systems Act 2007
r/w Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, the
complainant is entitled for presumption under Section 25 (2) of
The Payment and Settlement Systems Act 2007. Under Section
139 of Negotiable Instrument Act also there is similar
presumption. The provisions of Section 139 of Negotiable
Instrument Act reads as under:-
139- Presumption in favour of holder – It
should be presumed, unless the contrary is
12
C.C.No.25162/2025proved, 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.
14. Hon’ble Supreme court in a decision reported in (2010) 11
SCC 411 between Rangappa V/s Sri Mohan 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.
15. Therefore the principles laid down in this decision can also
be made applicable to the proceedings for the offence under
Section 25 of The Payment and Settlement Systems Act 2007. In
view of the principles laid down in the decision onus is on the
accused to rebut the presumption. The accused has not issued
any reply at the initial stage after service of the legal notice.
16. The accused put forward her defence in the cross
examination of PW 1. The accused in the cross examination of
PW 1 has not denied availment of the loan facility from the
13
C.C.No.25162/2025
complainant company. The accused has initially taken the
contention that the complainant has not provided the statement
of accounts. Later after production of Ex.P 11 statement of
accounts the accused has suggested to PW 1 that she has
repaid entire loan availed by her. On perusal of Ex.P 11 and
Ex.P 13 loan account, and the facts elicited in the cross
examination of PW 1, it appears that the complainant has
provided credit facility of the accused for the limit of
Rs.50,00,000/-. The accused is availing the credit facility from
the complainant from time to time as per her business
requirements. Such amount of loan availed from the credit limit,
is required to be repaid by the accused within 15 days of
availment. After repayment of said loan account, the accused
again availed the loan from the credit facility and used to repay
the same. As such the accused has availed loan for 96 times
from the credit facility and she has repaid the loan amount. It is
detailed in Ex.P 11 and P 13 statement of accounts. As per the
statement of accounts the sum of Rs.20,00,000/- is transferred
to the account of the accused with ICICI Bank on 20-01-2025.
This is mentioned by the complainant as 97 the loan. In the
cross examination the accused has suggested that she has
repaid all the loan facility including 97 th loan disbursed on 20-
01-2025. Thus the accused has admitted that the complainant
has disbursed as sum of Rs.20,00,000/- on 20-01-2025. But to
14
C.C.No.25162/2025
substantiate that she has repaid said amount to the
complainant has not produced any document before the court.
In the cross examination of PW 1 the accused has also made
contradictory statement that she has not availed 97 th loan on
20-01-2025. The accused is examined as DW 1 and her
husband is examined as DW 2. In their evidence, they have not
deposed any thing about the disbursal of loan amount of
Rs.20,00,000/- on 20-01-2025. They have neither denied or
admitted about the same. In the cross examination they have
denied the suggestion of the complainant about this aspect.
Thus the complainant by producing statement of accounts and
by furnishing details of disbursal of amount to the account of
the accused has established disbursal of said amount to the
accused. But the accused has not produced her bank statement
to prove that said amount allegedly disbursed is not credited to
her bank account or she has not produced any documents to
show that she has repaid said amount to the complainant or to
Trillion Loans FinTech Pvt Ltd. Therefore this defence is not
established with probable evidence before this court. Therefore
this defence of the accused is not sufficient to rebut the
presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act/
Section 25 (2) of The Payment and Settlement Systems Act
2007.
15
C.C.No.25162/2025
17. The accused has examined as DW 1. In her evidence she
has deposed that she is the proprietor of SPS trading company.
But she has deposed that her husband Ashwin Kumar is
handling the financial affairs of the said firm. Even in the cross
examination she has deposed her ignorance about the
transactions with the complainant company and deposed that
her husband is doing business in her name and she is only
signatory to the documents as per the instructions of her
husband. Thus the evidence of DW 1 is not having relevance to
appreciate the defence as she is not having any personal
knowledge about the transactions and it is handled by her
husband.
18. The accused has examined her husband as DW 2, In his
evidence he has deposed that SPS trading company is proprietor
ship concern of his wife and it is involved in the business of
Copra trading. He has stated that the complainant is a platform
for selling and buying various agricultural products. He has
stated that the complainant has done business transactions
with accused through 63 Ideas Infolabs Pvt Ltd and used to
make payment through Trillion Loans Fine Tect Pvt Ltd. He has
stated that as there is market fluctuations there is loss in the
business of Copra, Therefore the complainant has created story
of loan transactions. He has denied the loan liability of
Rs.21,92,000/- But he has deposed that they have deposited a
16
C.C.No.25162/2025
sum of Rs.25,00,000/- with 63 Ideas Info labs Pvt Ltd as
security deposit for the business transactions. But they have
not utilized said amount for payment adjustments as assured
by them. This defence is taken for the first time in the evidence
of DW 2. The DW 1 in her evidence not deposed about these
aspects. In the cross examination of PW 1 also the accused has
not made suggestions to the PW 1 about these aspects deposed
by DW2.
19. In the cross examination of DW 2 he has admitted that
accused entered into loan agreement and executed other loan
documents as per Ex.P 4 through digital platform and affixed
digital signature to the agreement. But he has denied
availement of loan and deposed that he do not know any thing
about loan transactions. The accused has produced EX.D 1 and
2 whatsup chat about deposit of Rs.25,00,000/- and Ex.D 3 for
deposit of Rs.25,00,000/- with 63 Ideas Info labs Pvt Ltd. The
DW 2 is linking this deposit with the complainant that the
deputy manager of complainant has made the whats up
conversation as per Ex.D 1, 2 and 4 for deposit of amount. But
the complainant has stated that said transactions with 63 Ideas
Info labs Pvt Ltd is no way connected to the loan transactions
with trillion loans. The accused has also produced the Invoice
raised by 63 Ideas Infolabs Pvt Ltd as Ex.D 5. As discussed
above the accused has not taken this defence co-relating the
17
C.C.No.25162/2025
transactions with 63 Ideas Infolabs Pvt Ltd with the loan
transactions with complainant and Trillion Loans Pvt Ltd.
Therefore without taking such defence at the earliest point of
time and without giving opportunity to PW 1 to have his say
about these contentions, the defence taken in the defence
evidence will not get any weightage, while appreciating the
evidence. The complainant has specifically contended that the
transactions with 63 Ideas Infolabs Pvt Ltd is no way concerned
to the loan transactions. Therefore this defence of the accused
also cannot be held to be a believable defence to rebut the
presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act/
Section 25 (2) of The Payment and Settlement Systems Act
2007.
20. The accused in the arguments has stated that all the
business transactions is held through Ninja Cart App. The
Deputy Regional Head of Ninja Cart as per Ex.D 1 and 2 have
demanded to deposit of Rs.25,00,000/- security deposit. It is
pure business transactions and there is no loan transactions as
alleged by the complainant. It is also stated that the
complainant Ninja Cart is not NBFC and it is not having licence
to do financial transactions. Therefore the contention of the
complainant that the accused has availed loan cannot be
believable. But this argument of the accused cannot be
sustained. The DW 2 husband of the accused has admitted
18
C.C.No.25162/2025
execution of loan agreement as per Ex.P 2. The accused has
also not been able to prove that she has not received a sum of
Rs.20,00,000/- transferred to her account on 20-01-2025 from
trillion loans as per the statement of account produced by the
complainant as Ex.P 11 and 13. The contentions raised by the
accused in the arguments is not taken in the initial stage of
cross examination of PW1 and the PW 1 not had opportunity to
respond to such contentions of the accused. It is taken at the
end of the trial in the evidence of DW 2. The complainant in the
complaint itself stated that the complainant is doing business of
wholesale trade of agricultural products. The complainant has
also not stated that they are NBFC or having licence for RBI to
do financial transactions. It is stated in the loan agreement
itself that loan is lent by Trillion Loans Pvt Ltd and the
complainant is only the assignee or facilitator to the loan and he
is authorized under the loan agreement itself to recover the loan
on behalf of Trillion Loans. Therefore this contentions of the
accused will not help the accused to rebut the presumption
under law.
21. Therefore this court concludes that the accused has failed to
rebut the presumption of existence of debt with probable
evidence and the complainant has successfully proved that the
accused has committed the offence punishable under Section
25 of The Payment and Settlement Systems Act 2007 r/w
19
C.C.No.25162/2025
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore this court
answers the above point No.1 in the Affirmative.
22. 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 25 of The
Payment and Settlement Systems Act r/w Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act. The Amount covered under the
NACH is Rs.21,92,000/- . The NACH mandate is processed for
collection on 03-05-2025. The money involved in the case is
used in commercial transactions. Therefore considering all these
aspects the amount of fine calculated for a sum of
Rs.23,69,400/-
23. The Hon’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
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
20
C.C.No.25162/2025
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.
Therefore considering directions issued by the Hon’ble High
Court issued in the above referred 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 –
ORDER
By exercising powers conferred under Section 278(2) of
Bharathiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhitha the accused is
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 25 of The
Payment and Settlement Systems Act 2007 R/w Section 138 of
Negotiable Instrument Act and she is sentenced to pay a fine of
21
C.C.No.25162/2025
Rs.23,69,400/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakh Sixty Nine
Thousand and Four Hundred only) which shall be deposited
with in a month and in default pay interest at the rate of 9%
from this day till payment of fine amount.
In default to pay the fine with interest, the accused shall
undergo simple imprisonment of six months.
Further acting Section 395(1)(a) of Bharathiya Nagarika
Suraksha Sanhitha out of the fine amount a sum of Rs.5,000/-
(Rupees Five Thousand only) shall be defrayed as prosecution
expenses to the state.
Further acting Section 395(1)(a) of Bharathiya Nagarika
Suraksha Sanhitha a sum of Rs.23,64,400/- (Rupees Twenty
Three Lakh Sixty Four Thousand and Four Hundred only) with
interest out of the fine amount on recovery shall be paid as
compensation to the complainant. The complainant shall credit
the compensation amount to the loan account of the accused
with Trillion Loans Fine Tech Pvt Ltd.
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 10th day of April 2026).
(GOKULA.K)
XXV A.C.J.M., BANGALORE CITY.
22
C.C.No.25162/2025
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
PW1 : Adarsh.R
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P1 : Notarized copy of Incorporation
Certificate
Ex.P2 : Notarized Copy of the Board Resolution
Ex.P3 : Authorization Letter
Ex.P4 : Copies of key fact, statement, sanction
letter, loan agreement, mandate
Ex.P5 : NACH Mandate
Ex.P6 : Dishonour Memo
Ex.P7 : Office copy of Legal Notice
Ex.P8 : Postal Receipt
Ex.P9 : Postal Track Consignment
Ex.P10 : Certificate U/s.63 of BSA.
Ex.P11 : Statement of accounts of the loan account
Ex.P12 : Certificate U/s.63 of BSA.
Ex.P13 : Statement of accounts of the loan account
Ex.P14 : Certificate U/s.63 of BSA.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE ACCUSED:-
DW1 : Krishnan Pavithra DW2 : Ashwin Kumar
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE ACCUSED:-
Ex.D1 : Print out of Whats app communication
Ex.D2 : Print out of email request by Tirumugam
Ex.D3 : Vanghee Transaction Receipt
Ex.D4 : Screenshot of e-mail
Ex.D5 : 6 Invoices of 63 Ideas Infolabs pvt Ltd
Ex.D6 : Screen shot of contact number of
Deputy General Manger of the complainant
Ex.D7 : Certificate U/s.65 B of Indian Evidence Act.
(GOKULA.K.)
XXV A.C.J.M., BANGALORE CITY.
23
C.C.No.25162/2025