Bangalore District Court
Bajaj Mukesh Koshorelal Huf Rep By … vs S.L Sudhakar on 16 April, 2026
KABC030180192021
IN THE COURT OF XX ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
AT BENGALURU CITY
PRESENT: BHOLA PANDIT,
B.Com.,LL.M.,
XX ADDL. C.J.M.
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 16th day of April 2026
C.C.No. 5963/ 2021
Complainant : Bajaj Mukesh Kishorelal Huf
Represented by Kartha
Mukesh K. Bajaj
S/o. Late Kishorelal M Bajaj
Age 55 years,
No.D 606, Wilson Manor Apartment,
13th Cross, Wilson Garden,
Bengaluru - 560 027
{ By Sri.Vijaykumar- Advocate }
Vs.
2 C.C No.5963/ 2021
1. S.Sudhakar
Accused :
Age 31 years,
S/o. Sri. C.Srinivas
Proprietor / Authorized Signatory
Maruthi Fabtech,
No.41/C, Kebbehalla Road,
Sunkadakatte,
Vishwaneedam Post,
Bangalore - 560 091
R/at No.1575, 7th Main Road,
Kengeri Upanagara,
Near Kalikamba Temple,
Kengeri
Bangalore - 560 060
2. Maruthi Fabtech
No.41/C, Kebbehalla Road,
Sunkadakatte,
Vishwaneedam Post,
Bangalore - 560 091
Represented by Proprietor / Authorized
Signatory
3 C.C No.5963/ 2021
{ By Sri. Ravikumar K R- Advocate }
Offence complained : U/S. 138 of N.I. Act.,
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
Final Order : Accused is Convicted.
Date of Order : 16.04.2026
4 C.C No.5963/ 2021
JUDGMENT
The present complaint is filed under section 2(d) read
with section 200 of code of criminal procedure against the
accused seeking to punish him for the offence punishable
under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ( in
short referred as “N.I. Act“).
02. The factual matrix of the complaint is summarized as
under;
It is alleged in the complaint that, accused No.1 is the
proprietor of the accused No.2 and being well known to the
Complainant from past 3 years had approached the
Complainant during end of July 2020 and had sought for
hand loan of Rs.7,50,000/- from the Complainant for urgent
business purposes. Accused No.1 representing accused No.2
agreed to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- to the Complainant
towards interest. Accordingly, the Complainant paid a sum
of Rs.6,75,000/- to the accused as loan on 05.08.2020 by
5 C.C No.5963/ 2021
way of RTGS after deducting the interest payable by the
accused No.1 and 2. Accordingly, the accused No.1 and 2
agreed to repay Rs.7,50,000/- (including interest amount) to
the Complainant. The accused No. 1 & 2, executed one on
demand promissory note and consideration receipt on
05.08.2020 for Rs.7,50,000/- in favour of complainant. One
Sowmya R. also signed on demand promissory note as
guarantor. Out of hand loan of Rs.7,50,000/-, the accused
No.1 and 2 have paid a sum of Rs.75,000/- to the
Complainant and still due a sum of Rs.6,75,000/- towards
the balance principal amount. After several demands and
requests, towards discharge of their liability, accused have
issued following cheques.
S.NO. CHEQUE NO DATE AMOUNT (Rs) DRAWN ON
1 000813 05.10.2020 75,000/- HDFC Bank, Satellite Town,
Bangalore -60
2 000814 08.12.2020 75,000/- HDFC Bank, Satellite Town,
Bangalore -60
3 000816 08.12.2020 75,000/- HDFC Bank, Satellite Town,
Bangalore -60
When the Complainant presented all the above said
cheques for encahsment through his bankers, the said
6 C.C No.5963/ 2021
cheques were returned with an endorsements “Funds
insufficient” on 09.12.2020. Thereafter, complainant got
issued legal notice on 22.12.2020 to accused persons. The
notice sent to the accused No.1 and 2 and to the guarantor
was duly served on 28.12.2020. In-spite of service of
demand notice, accused neither has paid the cheque amount
nor has given any reply. Accordingly, this complaint is filed
within time and has sought to convict the accused by
granting compensation under section 357 of Code of Criminal
Procedure double of the cheque amount.
03. On presentation of the complaint and after verification of
the averments of the complaint as well as the annexed
documents, this court took the cognizance for the offence
punishable under section 138 of NI Act. As per the verdicts of
the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Indian Bank Association
and others V/s Union of India and others, the sworn
statement of the complainant has been recorded by way of
examination-in-chief as PW.1 and got marked in all 16
7 C.C No.5963/ 2021
documents at Ex.P.1 to 16. After scrutinizing the oral and
documentary evidence of the complainant prima- facie case
is made out for the trial. Accordingly, by registering criminal
case in Register No. III, summons has been issued against
the accused.
04. In pursuance of the summons, the accused No.1 has
appeared before the court through his counsel and filed bail
application under section 436 of Code of Criminal Procedure,
the accused has been enlarged on bail. The accusation has
been read over to the accused, he pleaded not guilty and
wants to put forth defense. On filing application under
section 145(2) of NI Act, accused was permitted to cross
examine PW.1. In spite of granting sufficient time, the
accused not cross examined PW.1 and not adduced the
defense evidence. Even the accused deliberately avoided to
appear before the court to cause obstructions to the
proceedings. As per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High
8 C.C No.5963/ 2021
Court of Karnataka, in Crl. Rev. Pet.58/2016 dated
01.02.2025,, wherein it is held that;
” trial court has discretion to dispense with
recording the accused statement, if accused fails to
avail the opportunities of explaining to the
incriminating evidence even after being given
sufficient time.
The accused himself not appeared before the court to give
explanation to the incriminating evidence appeared in the
trial of the complainant’s case and also not chosen to lead
any evidence.
05. Heard the oral argument of counsel of complainant.
Perused the materials on record.
06. The points that arise for my consideration are as
follows;
POINTS
1. Does the complainant proves
beyond reasonable doubts that, the
accused has issued following cheques.
9 C.C No.5963/ 2021
Sl. CHEQUE DATE AMOUNT (Rs) DRAWN ON
NO NO
1 000813 05.10.2020 75,000/- HDFC Bank, Satellite Town,
Bangalore -60
2 000814 08.12.2020 75,000/- HDFC Bank, Satellite Town,
Bangalore -60
3 000816 08.12.2020 75,000/- HDFC Bank, Satellite Town,
Bangalore -60
towards the discharge of his lawful
liability of the complainant and when
the said cheques were presented for
encashment, they were returned as
“Funds insufficient” as per banker’s
memo and in-spite of issuance of
demand notice , the accused has failed
to pay the cheques amount, thereby
has committed the offence punishable
under section 138 of NI Act?
2. What Order or sentence ?
07. Now my answer to the above points is as follows;
1. Point No.1: In the affirmative
2. Point No.2: As per final order
for the following;
REASONS
POINT No.1:
08. It is the specific case of the complainant that, towards
discharge the legally enforceable debt, the accused has
10 C.C No.5963/ 2021issued cheques and the said cheques were presented for
encashment, they were returned unpaid as per banker’s
memo due to “Funds insufficient”. Accordingly, the
complainant issued demand notice to the accused and the
said notice was duly served to the accused on 28.12.2020.
Accused has not complied the notice. Thus, it is sought to
prosecute accused and convict him for the offense
punishable under section 138 of NI Act.
09. To bring home the guilt of the accused, as per the
verdicts of the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Indian Bank
Association and others V/s Union of India and others , the
sworn statement of the complainant has been recorded by
way of examination-in-chief as PW.1. PW.1 has replicated the
averments of the complaint. The complainant in all has
produced 22 documents marked at Ex.P.1 to 16. Ex.P.1 to 3
are the alleged cheques issued by the accused, Ex.P.1(a) to
3(a) are the signatures of the accused, Ex.P. 4 to 6 are the
cheque return memos, Ex.P.7 is the demand notice, Ex.P.8
11 C.C No.5963/ 2021
to 11 are the postal receipts – 4 Nos., Ex.P.12 to 14 are the
Postal acknowledgments, Ex.P.15 is the returned postal
cover, Ex.P15(a) is the notice inside the returned postal cover,
Ex.P16 is the On demand promissory note and consideration
receipts, Ex.P16(a) and (b) are the signatures of the accused.
No.1 on Ex.P16. Learned counsel for the accused not at all
cross examined the PW.1.
10. To disprove the case of the complainant and also to
rebut the statutory presumptions under section 139 of NI Act,
the accused neither has entered in the witness box nor has
produced documentary evidence.
11. As per section 118(a) and 139 of NI Act, it is very clear
that, when the issuance of cheque drawn from the account of
the drawer and also signature on the cheque is admitted or
undisputed, the statutory presumptions shall be drawn in
favour of the complainant stating that, the accused has
issued the disputed cheque towards the discharge of his
12 C.C No.5963/ 2021
legal debt and that the complainant is the due holder of the
said cheque. Even in the land mark judgments reported in,
2010(11) SCC 441, in the case of Rangappa Vs. Mohan,
wherein it is held that;
” Once the cheque relates to the account of the
accused and he accepts the same and also admits
his signature on the cheque, then the initial
presumption under section 139 of NI Act as well as
under section 118 of NI Act has to be raised in
favour of the complainant. It is a mandatory
presumption. But the accused is entitle to rebut
the same on preponderance of probabilities.”
In the recent judgment reported in, 2021(5) SCC 283,
in the case of Kalamani Tex and Another Vs.
P.Balasubramaniyan, the larger bench of the Hon’ble Apex
Court, it is held that;
” U/s 118 & 139: Once issuance of cheque and
signature admitted , it is required to presume
that the cheque was issued as consideration for a
legally enforceable debt.”
12. Before to advert the appreciation of oral and
documentary evidence of respective parties, it is necessary to
13 C.C No.5963/ 2021
find out whether the present complaint would meet the
mandatory provisions of section 138 of NI Act or not.
13. On perusal of the cheques, banker’s memos, demand
notice and postal records which are marked at Ex.P.1 to
P.15 and the present complaint is filed on 11.02.2021. By
considering these material documents and the presentation
of complaint, it appears that, the present complaint is filed
by complying the provisions of section 138(a) to (c) of NI Act.
14. Further, the accused not given any reply to the demand
notice at Ex.P.7. Therefore, an inference can be drawn
against the accused that, he has issued the cheques at Ex.P.1
to 3 towards discharge of his debt and the same has got
statutory presumption under section 118(a) of NI Act about
the issuance of the same by the accused for some
consideration and which corroborates the oral testimony of
PW.1 with regard to availing loan of Rs.7,50,000/- (including
interest of Rs.75,000/-) by the accused. The evidence of PW.1
14 C.C No.5963/ 2021
remain unchallenged and un-controverted and also the
cheques at Ex.P.1 to 3 and signatures there on at Ex.P.1(a)
to P3 (a) are not disputed. Therefore, the statutory
presumption under section 139 of NI Act shall be raised in
favour of the complainant. There is no rebuttal evidence
produced by the accused either by making cross examination
of PW.1 or by producing his own evidence before the court.
Hence, by the evidence of PW.1 coupled with the documents
at Ex.P.01 to 16, I am of the opinion that, the Complainant
has proved that, the accused has borrowed hand loan of
Rs.7,50,000/- from him and towards the discharge of the
said loan, the accused has issued the cheques at Ex.P.1 to
P3 for amount of Rs.75,000/- each and the said cheques were
returned unpaid due to “Funds insufficient” in the account
of the accused. Therefore, the accused has failed to rebut the
statutory presumptions under sections 118(a) & 139 of NI Act
raised in favour of the complainant. Therefore, I answered
point No.1 in the affirmative.
15 C.C No.5963/ 2021
POINT NO.2:
15. In the case of M/s. Banavathy & Company V/s.
Mahavir Electro Mech (P). Ltd. And others in Criminal
Revision Petition No.996/ 2016 the Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka pleased to direct all trail court to impose for
further interest @9% p.a. on the compensation amount. In
the light of guidelines issued by the Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
Acting under section 255 (2) of
Criminal Procedure Code, accused 1 & 2
are hereby convicted for the offence
punishable under section 138 of
Negotiable Instrument Act and sentenced
to pay fine of Rs.2,25,000/- (Rupees
Two Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand only )
together with future interest @ 9% p.a.
from the date of default to till the date of
deposit. In default, accused No.1 shall
16 C.C No.5963/ 2021
undergo simple imprisonment for 6(six)
months.
Acting under section 357(1) of code
of criminal procedure, it is ordered that
an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- (Rupees
Two Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand only )
along with interest there from shall be
paid to the complainant as a
compensation.
The bail bond of accused persons
stands canceled subject to appeal period.
Supply free copy of judgment to the
accused persons.
{Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and computerized by her, revised corrected
and then pronounced in the open court on this 16th day of April 2026}.
(BHOLA PANDIT)
XX ACJM, Bengaluru.
17 C.C No.5963/ 2021
ANNEXURE
List of witnesses examined on behalf of complainant:
P.W.1 Mukesh K Bajaj
List of documents produced on behalf of complainant:
Ex.P.1 to 3 Cheques
Ex.P.1(a) to 3(a) Signatures of accused No.1
Ex.P.4 to 6 Bank endorsements
Ex.P.7 Copy of the legal notice
Ex.P.8 to 11 Postal receipts
Ex.P.12 to 14 Postal acknowledgements
Ex.P.15 Unserved postal cover
Ex.P.15(a) Notice inside the postal covers
at Ex. P15
Ex.P.16 DP Note and consideration
receipt
Ex.P.16(a) & (b) Signature of accused No.1 on
DP Note and consideration
receipt
List of witnesses examined on behalf of accused:
-Nil-
List of documents produced on behalf of accused:
-Nil-
XX A.C.J.M.,
Bengaluru.
