Bangalore District Court
M/S. Rishi Polymach Pvt Ltd vs Redsand Constructions on 17 April, 2026
KABC030227542025
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE CITY
Dated this the 17th day of April 2026
Present : SRI. GOKULA. K
B.A.LL.B.
XXV Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bangalore City.
C.C.No.13159/2025
Complainant : M/s Rishi Polymach Pvt.Ltd,
Rep by its Director
Jaichand Lal Daga
No.C-2, 1st floor
Kudremukha colony
Sarjapura, 2nd block
Koramangala
Bengaluru 560 060.
(By GMS Advocate )
V/s
Accused : Redsand Constructions
By its Proprietor
Mahesh Kumar P
Aged 48 years
R/at No.2219/1K16
4th cross, Basaveshwara Road
K R Mohalla
Mysuru 570004.
(By PM - Advocate )
Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty
2
C.C.No.13159/2025
Final Order: Accused is convicted
Date of judgment : 17.04.2026
JUDGMENT
The complainant has filed the complaint under Section 223
Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) against the
accused for the offence punishable under Section 138
Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The brief case of the complainant is as under:
That the complainant is a company registered under
Companies Act and carrying on the business of manufacturing
and distribution of HDPE Pipes. The accused is one of the
customer of the complainant. The complainant supplied DN 63
PN6 PE 100 HDPE Pipes, DN 125 PN6 PE 100 HDPE Pipes and
DN140 PN6 PE 100 HDPE Pipes under invoice
NO.2022-23/MYS/312 dated 29.12.2022 for a value of
₹.3,65,795/-. Towards part payment of said amount the
accused issued a cheque bearing No.976167 dated 19.07.2024
for ₹.1,00,000/- drawn on Punjab National Bank, VV Market,
Mysuru. The complainant presented said cheque in the 1 st week
of September, 2024 through its banker ie. State Bank of India,
Koramangala, Bengaluru and said cheque returned dishonored
on 05.09.2024 for the reason “Funds Insufficient”. Hence, the
3
C.C.No.13159/2025complainant got issued legal notice dated 30.09.2024 calling
upon the accused to pay the amount involved in the cheque.
The said notice returned with postal shara “unclaimed and
intimated” on 04.10.2024. Inspite of issuance of notice, 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. On the basis of Private complaint filed by the
complainant, this court has taken cognizance of offence and
registered the case in PCR No.15132/2024 and recorded sworn
statement of the complainant and got marked 9 documents as
Ex.P1 to Ex.P.9. 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 he 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
4
C.C.No.13159/2025
accused and his 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 2014SCW3463, 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 complainant on record, the
incriminating circumstances in the evidence of the complainant
is read over to the accused and his statement under Section 351
of BNSS. He has denied the incriminating circumstances as
false. On the application of the accused the PW 1 is recalled
and he is subjected to cross examination. The accused himself
examined as DW1.
6. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the complainant and
arguments of learned counsel for the accused. Perused the
material on record .
7. 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 has issued
the cheque bearing No.976167 dated 19.07.2024
for ₹.1,00,000/- drawn on Punjab National Bank,
5
C.C.No.13159/2025V.V. Market, Mysuru for a sum of ₹.1,00,000/-
towards discharge of legally recoverable debt and
on presentation of the same it is dishonoured for
the reason “funds insufficient” on 05.09.2024
and inspite of issuance of demand notice on
30.09.2024 the accused has not complied the
demands in the notice and thus the accused
committed an offence punishable under Section
138 of Negotiable Instruments Act ?
2. What Order of Sentence?
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 examined as PW-1 and in his evidence
affidavit he has reiterated the averments made in the complaint.
The PW1 has deposed that the complainant is a company
incorporated under Companies Act and carrying on the
business of manufacturing and distribution of HDPE Pipes. To
prove the legal status, the complainant has produced the
certified copy of the Incorporation Certificate as Ex.P.1. It is
stated that the PW 1 is authorised by the Board of Directors to
represent the complainant company. The PW 1 has produced
the Board Resolution as Ex.P.2. This document proves
6
C.C.No.13159/2025
authority of PW 1 to represent the complainant company. The
accused has not denied legal status of the complainant and
authority of PW 1 to represent the complainant company. The
accused has denied personal knowledge of the PW 1 about the
transactions with the accused.
10. The PW 1 has deposed that the accused is one of the
customer of the complainant. He has deposed that they have
supplied DN 63 PN6 PE 100 HDPE Pipes, DN 125 PN6 PE 100
HDPE Pipes and DN140 PN6 PE 100 HDPE Pipes under invoice
NO.2022-23/MYS/312 dated 29.12.2022 to the value of
₹.3,65,795/-. The complainant has produced the the Tax
invoice for supply of materials as Ex.P 8. The complainant has
also produced the ledger extract as Ex.P.9. The PW 1 has
further deposed that towards part payment of said invoice
amount the accused issued a cheque bearing No.976167 dated
19.07.2024 for ₹.1,00,000/- drawn on Punjab National Bank,
VV Market, Mysuru. Said cheque is produced as Ex.P.3. The
PW 1 further deposed that they have presented said cheque in
the 1st week of September, 2024 through its banker i.e. State
Bank of India, Koramangala, Bengaluru and said cheque
returned dishonored on 05.09.2024 for the reason “Funds
Insufficient”. Said bank endorsement is marked as Ex.P.4. The
PW 1 further deposed that they have got issued legal notice
dated 30.09.2024 calling upon the accused to pay the amount
7
C.C.No.13159/2025
involved in the cheque. Said notice is marked as Ex.P.5. The
PW 1 further deposed that said notice returned with postal
shara “unclaimed and intimated” on 04.10.2024. Evidencing
the same, the complainant has produced the postal receipt and
the returned postal envelope as Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.7. The PW 1
has deposed that in spite of service of demand notice the
accused has not paid the amount and thus he has committed
the offence.
11. The essential ingredients of section 138 and 142 of
Negotiable Instruments Act to be complied are i) drawing of the
cheque by the accused 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.13159/2025
12. It is now proper to consider wither the complainant has
complied all the statutory requirements for constituting offence
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The cheque is
dated 19.07.2024. Said cheque is presented for collection
through State Bank of India, Koramangala branch and said
cheque returned dishonored on 05.09.2024 for the reason
“Funds Insufficient”. The legal notice is issued 30.09.2024 and
the said notice returned as “unclaimed and intimated” on
04.10.2024. The cause of action arose for prosecution of the
accused on failure of the accused to comply the demands in the
notice with in the statutory period on 19.10.2024. The
complaint is filed before this court on 11.11.2024 within the
statutory period. As provided 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 has been dishonored, presume the fact of dishonor of
such said cheque, unless and until same is disproved. The
accused has not disputed that the cheque is drawn from his
account and not disputed issuance of cheque and his signature
on the cheque. The cheque is presented for collection through
the account of the complainant with State Bank of India,
Koramangala branch, Bangalore which is situated within the
jurisdiction of this court. The accused has denied service of
demand notice. But he has not denied the address in the postal
9
C.C.No.13159/2025
envelop or in the notice. The notice is returned with postal
endorsement, unclaimed and intimation delivered. To disprove
the correctness of such endorsement made by the postal
authority, the accused has not made any efforts to summon the
postal authority or to prove that the endorsement is incorrect.
Therefore the notice to the accused deemed to be served and the
accused intentionally unclaimed the notice inspite of delivery of
intimation. Thus the complainant has complied all the statutory
requirements for constitution of offence under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act. 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
10
C.C.No.13159/2025instrument bearing a date was made or
drawn on such date; (c) ………………
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 proved, that the
holder of a cheque received the cheque, of the nature
referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole
or in part, of any debt or other liability.
13. 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.
11
C.C.No.13159/2025
Thus, by applying the settled legal principles laid down in the
above decisions, once the complainant discharges his burden
the accused shall rebut the presumption with probable evidence
either eliciting the material from the evidence of complainant or
producing his evidence.
14. The accused has admitted the business transactions with
the complainant. He has stated that he had business
transactions with the complainant from last 8 years and he had
made the business to the tune of ₹ 70,00,000/- with the
complainant. He has also admitted that he used to purchase
materials from the complainant from their factory at Belagola
Industrial Area, Mysuru. The accused has contended that he
has paid all the invoice amount including Exhibit P8 invoice to
the factory in charge of the complainant at Mysuru by name
Narasimha moorthy and there is no due amount payable by the
accused. Thus, in the cross-examination of PW1, the accused
has not disputed supply of materials as per Exhibit P8 invoice
by the complainant. But he has taken the contention that he
has paid the invoice value of Exhibit P8 and also all other
invoices raised by the complainant and there is no due amount
payable by the accused to the complainant. But in the defence
evidence as DW1, the accused has taken the contention that the
complainant has not supplied the materials as per Exhibit P8
12
C.C.No.13159/2025
tax invoice. Therefore the complainant has not produced the e
way bill in respect of Exhibit P8 tax invoice.
15. The accused has further taken the contention that at the
time of commencement of the business transactions with the
complainant, he has issued three blank signed cheques to the
complainant for the purpose of security. The complainant has
misused one among three cheques for the purpose of filing of
this case.
16. In the cross-examination of PW1, he has admitted that
accused has purchased the materials from their factory at
Beragola industrial area, Mysuru. He has admitted that the
factory in charge, Ravi was attending the transactions with the
accused at Mysuru. He has also admitted that one Narasimha
Moorthy is in charge of their factory at Mysuru.
17. In the cross-examination, PW1 has admitted that at the time
of commencement of the business transactions, the accused has
given 3 cheques to the complainant. But he has not admitted
that one among the cheques issued at the time of
commencement of the transactions is used for filing of this case.
Further he has deposed that the accused has issued 3 cheques
for ₹ 1,00,000/- each towards the balance payment in Exhibit
P8 for a sum of ₹.3,18,000/- in the month of December 2024.
13
C.C.No.13159/2025
Learned counsel for the accused during the course of arguments
has submitted that the PW1 at one stretch has admitted that
they have obtained three blank cheques for the purpose of
security and at the another stretch he has deposed that in the
month of December 2024 the accused has issued three cheques
for ₹ 1,00,000/- each. Therefore, learned counsel for the
accused has submitted that the case of the complainant is
doubtful. It is pertinent to note that even though the accused
PW1 has admitted that they have obtained three cheques for the
purpose of security, he has not admitted that among said
cheques, they have used one cheque for filing of this case. He
has specifically deposed that in the month of December 2024,
the accused has issued three charges. Therefore, only for the
reason that PW1 has admitted that they have collected three
cheques at the time of commencement of the business
transactions with the accused, it cannot be presumed that the
present cheque was issued by the for the purpose of security at
the time of commencement of the transactions. The accused is
not specific about the cheque numbers issued for the purpose of
security at the time of commencement of the transactions with
the complainant. Therefore, this factor itself will not establish
that the cheque in question is obtained by the complainant for
the purpose of security. Even for the sake of arguments it is
presumed that the cheque is obtained for the purpose of
14
C.C.No.13159/2025
security. This itself will not preclude the complainant from
utilizing said cheque, for claiming the existing legally
recoverable debt. In this aspect it is proper to place reliance to
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
15
C.C.No.13159/2025
presentation, if the same is dishonoured, the
consequences contemplated under Section 138
and the other provisions of the NI Act would
flow.
Therefore in view of the principles laid down in this decision, the
cheque issued for security may also mature for presentation
and on dishonour of the same the consequences under
Negotiable Instruments Act will follow. Therefore only for the
reason that the Ex.P 3 cheque was issued by the accused for
security purpose itself does not disentitle the complainant to
present it for securing legal liability.
18. The accused has stated that he has repaid entire amount in
respect of the transactions with the complainant. But to
establish said factor, the accused has not produced any
material evidence before this court. The complainant has
produced the ledger statement as Exhibit P9 from 01.04.2024 to
11.03.2025, which shows the outstanding due amount for
₹3,18,808/-. This also shows that the accused has paid a sum
of ₹.50,000/- on 20.07.2024. The accused, who taken the
contention that he has repaid all the amount in respect of
material purchased from the complainant, has not produced his
ledger statement, cash receipts or bank transfer details before
this court.
16
C.C.No.13159/2025
19. Thus, upon considering entire material on record, the
accused except his self-serving statement that he has repaid
entire amount for the material purchased by him to the
complainant, has not produced any documentary evidence
before this court. The accused, at the one stretch, in the cross
examination of PW 1 has admitted that he has repaid entire due
amount including the invoice amount under Exhibit P8. But in
his evidence as DW1 he has changed his version and contended
that no material is supplied by the complainant as per Exhibit
P8 invoice. Thus the accused has contradicted in his evidence.
The accused has also stated that he has repaid the due amount
to Narasimhamoorthy by cash. But the PW1 has deposed that in
their company they will not accept cash payments. If the
accused has repaid the amount by cash he should have
obtained cash receipt from the complainant. But the accused
has not produced any material before this court to show that he
has made the payment for the material purchased by him and
there is no due amount payable to the complainant. Therefore,
this Court is of the considered view that the defence taken by
the accused does not inspire the confidence of this Court that
there is no outstanding due amount payable by the accused and
it does not probabalise non-existence of legally recoverable debt.
Therefore, this Court concludes that the accused has failed to
rebut the presumption available in favour of the complainant
17
C.C.No.13159/2025
under Section 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The
complaint is backed with the presumption under law. It is
statutory presumption. Till the accused is able to rebut the
presumption about existence of legally recoverable liability, the
complainant cannot be called upon to prove the existence of
legally recoverable debt by producing cogent and conclusive
evidence. The Court is bound to presume that the cheque
Exhibit P 3 is issued by the accused towards discharge of legally
recoverable debt. Therefore, this Court concludes that the
complainant has proved with the aid of presumption under
Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act that the Accused has
issued Exhibit P3 cheque towards discharge of legally
recoverable debt and it is dishonored on its presentation for the
reason funds insufficient and in spite of issuance of demand
notice the accused has not complied the same and thus he has
committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore this Court answers the
above point number 1 in the Affirmative.
20. 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 ₹.1,00,000/-. The cheque is dated 19.07.2024. The
18
C.C.No.13159/2025
money involved in the case is used in commercial transactions.
Therefore the fine amount that may be imposed is calculated for
a sum of ₹.1,20,750/-
21. 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 Mahaeer 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
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
19
C.C.No.13159/2025
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 in this decision it is 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 138 of
Negotiable Instrument Act and he is sentenced to pay a fine of
₹.1,20,750/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Thousand Seven
Hundred and Fifty 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 6 months.
Further acting Section 395(1)(a) of Bharathiya Nagarika
Suraksha Sanhitha out of the fine amount a sum of ₹.5,000/-
20
C.C.No.13159/2025
(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 ₹.1,15,750/- (Rupees One Lakh
Fifteen Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty only), , with 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,
partly dictated to the Adalath AI computer application, transcribed by it,
corrected and signed then pronounced by me in the open court on this the
17th day of April 2026).
(GOKULA.K)
XXV A.C.J.M., BANGALORE CITY.
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
PW.1 : Naveenson Royan
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P1 : Certified Copy of Incorporation Certificate
Ex.P2 : Board Resolution
Ex.P3 : Cheque
Ex.P4 : Bank Endorsement
Ex.P5 : Copy of Legal Notice
Ex.P6 : Postal receipt
Ex.P7 : Returned Postal envelope
Ex.P8 : Web copies of tax invoice
Ex.P9 : Ledger Extract
21
C.C.No.13159/2025LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE ACCUSED:-
DW.1 : Mahesh Kumar.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE ACCUSED:-
Nil
(GOKULA.K.)
XXV A.C.J.M., BANGALORE CITY.