Bangalore District Court
Sanjjanna Archana Galrani vs Ramesh Puppalla on 25 January, 2025
KABC0C0202742021
IN THE COURT OF XXXIV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU. (ACJM-34)
PRESENT: Smt. PARVEEN A BANKAPUR,B.Com.LLB.
XXXIV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
Dated : This the 25th day of January, 2025
C.C.No.56255/2021
COMPLAINANT : Mrs. Sanjjanna Archana Galrani
Aged about 34 years,
C/o. Azeez Pasha,
R/ at No.47, Flat No. 001,
Sai Teja Shrine, Off 100 Feet Road,
Indiranagar- 560 008.
(By Mr.S.K. Mithun - Advocates)
V/s
ACCUSED : Mr. Ramesh Puppalla
Aged major,
R/at: A-1, Block,F lat No 107,
Aditya DSR Lake Side Apartment,
J V Colony Main Road, Mouryas
Ranga Prasad Avenue, Indira Nagar,
Gachibowli, Hyderabad,
Telangana - 500 032
(By Mr. M.R. Shalamala & Narasimha
Reddy - Advocates)
1 Date of Commencement 05.07.2021
of offence
2 Date of report of offence 09.09.2021
3 Presence of accused
3a. Before the Court 05.08.2022
3b. Released on bail 05.08.2022
4 Name of the Complainant Mrs. Sanjanna Archana Galrani
5 Date of recording of 28.10.2021
evidence
6 Date of closure of evidence 09.10.2024
7 Offences alleged U/s 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act.
8 Opinion of Judge Accused is not found guilty.
2
C.C.No.56255/2021
JUDGEMENT
The Private Complaint filed by the Complainant under
Section 200 of Cr.P.C against the accused alleging that he has
committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:
The complainant submits that, she being one of the
leading influencers, artist, celebrity and having created her own
identity in the society and in film industry is a very known
person in the Kannada and other language film industry. The
Accused introduced to her stating that he is a profession film
producer and in the industry for several years and have
invested in many upcoming movies and film in Telugu industry
It is further submitted by the Complainant that she
approached by the Accused and had requested her support the
upcoming movie by the Accused and the Accused had also
requested her for financial help and had also promised that in
future films she would be introduced in the Accused production
banner.
The Complainant further submits that, to expand her field
of performance in Telugu industry and with business interest
3
C.C.No.56255/2021she decided to financially help the Accused and lent Rs.35
lakhs through cash and bank transfer and also through
common friends in the year 2013 and 2014. Believing the
Accused’s words had invested in Accused’s film production for
which the Accused had promised the Complainant that he
would be returning the entire amount along with profit and also
would be starring the Complainant in the Accused’s future film
production as soon as the ongoing film is completed and
released.
It is further submitted that her friends informed that the
Accused is being cheating several celebrities, models and female
artists and has utilized their innocence and money for his
personal use, illegal gain and has illegally collected hug
investments from different female celebrities and used their
money for his personal benefit.
It is further submitted that after knowledge the Accused’s
true color, the Complainant requested for the return of money
and waited for years and requested for information regarding
the film, production or the update over the return of the money
borrowed.
4
C.C.No.56255/2021
It is further submitted that upon her continuous follow
ups and demands, the Accused had called up for the meeting
and admitted that he has utilized her money for his personal
benefit and requested her to give additional time to return the
same.
It is further submitted that inspite of giving additional
time, the Accused has not return the said amount. Finally,
the Accused issued a Cheque bearing No.076128 dtd.5.7.2021
for Rs.50,00,000/- drawn on ICICI Bank, Kavuri Hills branch,
Hyderabad. with an assurance the same would be honoured on
its presentation for encashment and informed that, the
additional amount of Rs.15 lakhs is towards damages, loss
incurred to the Complainant.
It is further submitted by the Complainant that believing
the words of the Accused, she presented the said cheque
through her banker i.e., HDFC Bank, Old Airport Road branch,
Bengaluru for encashment. However the cheque was
dishonoured with an endorsement as “funds insufficient”.
Thereafter, the Complainant got issued a legal notice by RPAD
on 28.7.2021. But the same was returned with a shara ‘No
such person in the address’ on 19.7.2021. Despite knowledge
5
C.C.No.56255/2021of legal notice, the Accused has neither paid the Cheque
amount. Accordingly, the Complainant has filed present
complaint against the Accused for the offence punishable
u/Sec.138 of N.I. Act.
3. Based on the complaint, the sworn statement affidavit,
and documents etc., took cognizance of an offence punishable
Under Section 138 of N.I. Act by following the guidelines of Apex
Court issued in Indian Bank Association case and ordered to be
registered a criminal case against the accused for the offence
punishable Under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
4. After issuance of summons, accused appeared before
the court and enlarged himself on bail. Plea was recorded, read
over and explained to the accused, who pleads not guilty and
claims to be tried. Hence, the case is posted for complainant’s
evidence.
5. The Complainant got examined herself as PW-1 and
got marked documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6 and closed her side.
6. Accused was examined U/S 313 of Cr.P.C.
Incriminating evidence appearing in the complainant’s evidence
was read over and explained to the accused who denies the
6
C.C.No.56255/2021
same. The Accused got examined himself as DW1 and got
marked 9 documents at Ex.D1 to Ex.D9 and close his side.
7. Heard arguments of both sides at full length. In
addition to the oral arguments, both the learned counsels
appearing for parties have filed their respective written
arguments.
The learned Counsel for Complainant has placed the
following citations;
a. 2006 Cri.L.J. 3111
b. 2003 (2) KLJ 513
c. 2012 BOM CR (Cri) 764
The learned Counsel for Accused has placed the following
citations;
1. 2019 (2) ALT (Crl) 1 SC in the case of Basalingappa Vs.
Mudibasappa
2. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 46 in the case of Rajaram V/s.
Maruthachalam since deceased through LRs
3. 2015 (2) ALD (Crl) 603 SC in the case of K. Subramani
Vs. K. Damodara Naidu
4. 2009 (1) ALD (Crl) 468 (SC) in the case of Kumar
Exports V/s. Sharma Carpets
5.2017(1) ALT (Crl) 259 (AP) in the case of K. Venkata
Krishna Prasad V/s. Peram Sai Swarupa, Vijayawada &
another
7
C.C.No.56255/2021
6. 2017 (1) ALT (Crl) 320 (AP) in the case of K. Ashok
Kumar Goud V/s. Sree Ramulu and another
7. II (2009) BC 224 in the case of Shivamurthy V/s.
Amruthraj
8. 2015 (2) ALD (Crl) 510 in the case of Vallabhaneni
Srinivasa Rao V/s. Mangalapudi Venkateswarlu and
another
9. 2017 (2) ALT (Crl) 279 (AP) in the case of R.
Chennakesava Rao V/s. P. Laxmi Narasaiah & another
10. AIR 2009 (NOC) 2327 (BOM.) in the case of Sanjay
Mishra V/s. Ms. Kanishka Kapoor @ Nikki and another
11. Crl. R.C. No.173 of 2015 in the case of C. Ramesh
V/s. Sakthivel
12. 2015 (3) ALT (Crl) 421 (AP) in the case of Gerard
Kollian V/s. M/s. Weis Electronics and industrial
Services (P) Ltd and others
13. 2004 (1) ALT (Crl) 39 (AP) in the case of R. A.
Yesubabu Vs. D. Appala Swamy and another
14. 2006 (3) ALT (Crl) 175 (AP) in the case of C.S.
Madhusudhan V/s. B. Eswaramma and another
15. 2004 (1) ALD (Crl) 815 (AP) in the case of K. Annaji
Rao V/s. N. Krishna Raju Sekhar & another
16. Aironline 2019 Del 940 in the case of R.L. Varma &
Sons V/s. P.C. Sharma
8. Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the
materials placed on record, the following points arise for my
consideration.
1) Whether complainant proves beyond all
reasonable doubts that accused in discharge of
legally recoverable debt has issued a Cheque
No.076128 dtd.5.7.2021 for Rs.50,00,000/-
8
C.C.No.56255/2021
drawn on ICICI Bank, Kavuri Hills branch,
Hyderabad in favour in favour of the
complainant which came to be dishonoured with
an endorsement “funds insufficient” and in
spite of receipt of notice accused has not paid
the Cheque amount and thereby committed an
offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act?
2) What Order?
9. My findings on the above points is:
Point No.1: In the Negative
Point No.2: As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
Point No.1:-
10. Existence of legally recoverable debt is a sine qua non
for prosecuting the case under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act. For convenient purpose the essential
ingredients to constitute offence under section 138 of N.I.Act is
summarized as below:
(i) That there must be a legally enforceable debt.
(ii) That the cheque was drawn from the account of
bank for discharge in whole or in part of any debt
or other liability which presupposes the legally
enforceable debt.
(iii)That the cheque so issued had been returned due to
“insufficient funds”.
11. It is the core contention of the complainant that,
she being one of the leading influencers, artist, celebrity and
9
C.C.No.56255/2021
having created her own identity in the society and in film
industry is a very known person in the Kannada and other
language film industry. The Accused introduced to her stating
that he is a profession film producer and in the industry for
several years and have invested in many upcoming movies and
film in Telugu industry. To expand her field of performance in
Telugu industry and with business interest she decided to
financially help the Accused and lent Rs.35 lakhs through cash
and bank transfer and also through common friends in the year
2013 and 2014. Believing the Accused’s words had invested in
Accused’s film production for which the Accused had promised
the Complainant that he would be returning the entire amount
along with profit and also would be starring the Complainant in
the Accused’s future film production as soon as the ongoing
film is completed and released. It is further submitted that her
friends informed that the Accused is being cheating several
celebrities, models and female artists and has utilized their
innocence and money for his personal use, illegal gain and has
illegally collected hug investments from different female
celebrities and used their money for his personal benefit.
10
C.C.No.56255/2021
12. It is further submitted that after knowledge the
Accused’s true color, the Complainant requested for the return
of money and waited for years and requested for information
regarding the film, production or the update over the return of
the money borrowed. Thereafter after several continuous
demands, the Accused agreed to return the amount along with
damages and issued a Cheque bearing No.076128 dtd.5.7.2021
for Rs.50,00,000/- drawn on ICICI Bank, Kavuri Hills branch,
Hyderabad. with an assurance the same would be honoured on
its presentation for encashment and informed that, the
additional amount of Rs.15 lakhs is towards damages, loss
incurred to the Complainant, which was dishonoured with an
endorsement as “funds insufficient” on its presentation.
Thereafter, the Complainant got issued a legal notice by RPAD
on 28.7.2021. But the same was returned with a shara ‘No
such person in the address’ on 19.7.2021. Despite knowledge
of legal notice, the Accused has neither paid the Cheque
amount. Accordingly, the Complainant has filed present
complaint against the Accused for the offence punishable
u/Sec.138 of N.I. Act.
11
C.C.No.56255/2021
13. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused,
Complainant got examined herself as PW1 and reiterated the
contents of complaint in her examination-in-chief. She has also
placed original No.076128 dtd.5.7.2021 at Ex.P1, bank
endorsement at Ex.P2, office copy of legal notice issued by the
Complainant to the Accused on 28.7.2021 at Ex.P3, postal
receipt at Ex.P5, Ex.P5 is the returned postal cover and Ex.P6 is
the payment receipt.
14. The documents produced by the complainant of
course established that complainant meets out the procedural
requirements of Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, but it
is to be considered whether all these documents establish the
offence committed by the accused.
15. The Negotiable Instruments Act raises two
presumptions. One contained in Section 118 and the other in
Sec. 139 thereof. For the sake of convenience Sec 118(1) of the
N.I. Act is extracted here below:
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
12
C.C.No.56255/2021that every such instrument, when it has been accepted,
indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted,
indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration.
1. To (g) . . . . . . . . . . . .
Provided that where the instrument has been
obtained from its lawful owner, or from an person in
lawful custody thereof, by means of an offence of fraud,
or has been obtained from the maker or acceptor
thereof by means of an offence of fraud, or for unlawful
consideration, the burden of proving that the holder is
a holder in due course lies upon him”.
16. Further Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
reads as under:
“139, Presumption in favour of holder. It shall 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.”
Scope and ambit and function of the presumption
U/s 118(a) and Sec 139 of NI Act came to be considered
by the Hon’ble Apex Court of Indian in Krishna
Janardhan Bhat Vs Dattatraya G.Hegde (2008 AIAR
(Criminal 151) The Supreme Court has laid down the
law in the following phraseology.
” D Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, Secs 139,
138–Presumption under-same arises in regard to
second aspect of the matter provided under Sec 138–
13
C.C.No.56255/2021
Existence of legally enforceable debt is not a matter of
presumption under Sec 139- It merely raises
presumption in favour of a holder of the cheque that the
same has been issued for discharge of any debt or other
liability – Merely an application of presumption
contemplated under Section 139 of N.I.Act should not
lead to injustice or mistaken conviction.”
17. Further, said decision was followed by Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka in Kempanarasimhaiah Vs P.Rangaraju
& Others (2008 (5) KCCR 3371). Relevant paragraph of the
said judgment reads as under: –
“12. As to the provisions of Sections 138 of N.I.Act, the
following principles emerge from the above
observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court at para Nos 21,
23, 25, 26 and 34 of its Judgment in the above said
case of Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs Dattatraya
G.Hegde, AIR 2008 SC 1325.
(i) Section 139 of the Act merely raises a presumption
that the cheque was issued towards discharge in whole
or in part in any debt or other liability, which
presupposed legally enforceable debt. Existence of
legally recoverable debt is not a matter of presumption
under Section 139 of the Act. It merely raises a
presumption in favour of a holder of the cheque that
the same has been issued for discharge of any debt or
other liability.” ( para 21)
(ii) The question as to whether the presumption stood
rebutted or not, must be determined keeping in view
14
C.C.No.56255/2021the other evidences on record. Where the chances of
false implication cannot be ruled out, the background
fact and the conduct of the parties together with their
legal requirements are required to be taken into
consideration. (para 26)
(iii) An accused, for discharging the burden of proof placed
upon him under a statute, need not examine himself.
He may discharge his burden on the basis of the
materials already brought on records (para 23)
(iv) Standard of proof on the part of an accused and that of
the prosecution in a criminal case is different. Further
more where as prosecution must prove the guilt of an
accused beyond all reasonable doubt, the standard of
proof so as to prove a defence on the part of an
accused is “preponderance of probabilities'” ( para 23
& 25)
(v) Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be
drawn not only from the materials brought on records
by the parties but also by reference to the
circumstances upon which he relies ( para 25)
(vi) Other important principles of legal jurisprudence,
namely presumption of innocence as human rights
and the doctrine of reverse burden introduced by
Section 139 should be deliberately balanced (para 34)
18. Thus from the observations extracted above, it is
clear that presumption Under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is only
to the extent that the cheque was drawn for discharge in full or
in part of any debt or other liability and the said presumption
do not relate to the existence of legally enforceable debt or
liability. Therefore, before drawing the presumption under
Section 139 of the N.I.Act, it is the duty of the Court to see
15
C.C.No.56255/2021
whether or not the complainant has discharged his initial
burden as to existence of legally enforceable debt. No doubt, as
per Section 118(a) of the Act, there is a rebuttable presumption
that every negotiable instrument, is accepted, endorsed,
negotiated or transferred was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or
transferred for consideration.”
19. Factual matrix of the case is required to be tested on
the anvil of principles emerging from the above-referred
decisions.
20. The defence taken by the Accused is that, he is a
physical handicap person and lost his right hand in the
accident and he put his signature with his left hand because of
that, he used to put his signature on blank non-judicial stamp
papers on blank signed cheque and also blank letter head
papers and same were given to his Secretary and in turn she
used to give payments to the artists and employees in his
absence. It is further submitted by the Accused that the
Complainant managed his secretary and had taken blank
signed stamp papers and signed blank cheques of the Accused
from his secretary and misusing the same and filed the present
16
C.C.No.56255/2021
false complaint. Further defence taken by the Accused that the
present claim is time barred debt.
21. To substantiate her claim the Complainant examined
herself as PW1. In the evidence she deposed that, she is artist
celebrity and having created her own identity in the society and
film industry in Kannada and other languages. It is further
deposed that, the Accused introduced himself stating that he is
a film producer and in the industry for several years and have
invested in many upcoming movies and film in Telugu Industry.
It is further deposed that, the Accused approached the
Complainant and requested to support in the upcoming movie
and also requested the Complainant for financial help and
promised that in his future films, he would be introduced in the
Accused’s production banner. It is further deposed that, inspite
of busy schedule the Complainant took time and discussed with
the Accused about the financial assistance n the Accused’s
ongoing film production. It is further submitted that, the
Complainant was never interested in performing under the
Accused’s banner, however to expand her field of performance
in Telugu industry and with business interest, she decided to
financially help the Accused by lending Rs.35 lakhs which was
17
C.C.No.56255/2021
paid by her by way of cash and also bank transfer and also
through common friends in the year 2013-14. It is further
deposed that, she came to know that the Accused was having a
very luxury life and organizing huge parties and inviting
different celebrities, actors, models especially young women,
believing the Accused’s social status and to maintain good
relationship with Telugu industry, the Complainant paid the
amount to the Accused. It is further deposed that, later
Complainant was informed through her movie friends that the
Accused is being cheating several celebrities, models and female
artists by utilizing their innocence and money, illegal gain and
have illegally collected huge investments from different female
celebrities and have used their money for her personal benefit
and not returning the investment or the profit and It is further
deposed that, after knowing the Accused’s true color,
immediately the Complainant requested for return of her money
and waited for years. It is further deposed that, on every
occasion the Accused has given reasons for which are
unbelievable and Complainant waited patiently since both
parties were into movie industry and producers have huge
connection and initiating legal actions against one producer
18
C.C.No.56255/2021
might loose reputation. It is further deposed that, after
continuous follow ups and demands, Accused admitted hat, he
had utilized the money for his personal benefit and he
requested to give some additional time for arranging the money.
It is further deposed that, even after giving sufficient time
Accused failed to return the amount or the profit which he was
promised. It is further deposed that, the Complainant informed
to the Accused that she would be initiating legal action against
him. Thereafter, the Accused issued personal cheque as per
Ex.P1 and also informed that the additional amount of Rs.15
lakhs towards damages and loss incurred by her will be cleared
through this cheque. It is further deposed that, after
presentation of Ex.P1 cheque for encashment it was
dishonoured with reason “funds insufficient” as per Ex.P2.
Thereafter, the Complainant got issued legal notice to the
Accused as per Ex.P3 calling upon him to pay the cheque
amount, which is returned unserved as no such person in the
address as per Ex.P5.
22. Considering the oral and documentary evidence
placed by the Complainant prima facie presumed that Ex.P1
cheque was issued by the Accused towards discharge of legally
19
C.C.No.56255/2021
enforceable debt. To rebut the presumption, the learned
Counsel for Accused cross-examined the PW1 in full length. In
the cross-examination it is admitted that, Complainant is
permanent resident of Bengaluru and also admits that, the
Accused was film producer in Telugu Film Industry. It is further
admits that one fo the film by name Veerappakaya Telugu film
produced by the Accused is blockbuster movie in the year 2010.
It is further stated in the cross-examination that, she met the
Accused first time in the year 2012, but she denied that, Paisa
movie produced by the Accused. It is further denied that
initially the Complainant was booked as a heroine in that movie
and also denied that, the Accused advanced to the Complainant
for Rs.15 lakhs. It is further denied that as per the direction of
director, Accused removed the Complainant from that movie.
It is further denied by the PW1 that, whenever the Complainant
and her mother visited to Hyderabad, they were stayed in the
guest house of Accused. It is further denied that, for returning
of Rs.15 lakhs the mother of the Complainant was issued
cheque for Rs.5,25,000/-, but she stated that, it is given to the
Accused as a handloan. In the cross-examination PW1 stated
that, during the month of April 2013 to April 2014 she had paid
20
C.C.No.56255/2021
Rs.40 lakhs amount to the Accused in different installments.
She admitted that, in the legal notice the amount was
mentioned as Rs.35 lakhs as lent by her. in the cross-
examination of PW1 she admits that she know the secretary of
the Accused by name Ms. Anupama Jyothy and she acquainted
with Ms.Anupama Jyothy through Accused. In the cross-
examination further she stated that the lent amount to the
Accused is reflected in the income tax return filed by her. She
further stated that she is ready to produce the bank account
statement and not ready to produce the income tax returns. In
the cross-examination she further stated that on 16.4.2014 she
received Ex.P6 from the Accused. She further admits that at the
time of filing of complaint Ex.P6 is in her custody. She further
admits that, in Ex.P 6 in the column of subject it is mentioned
that, “receive money Rs.40 lakhs from Ramesh Uppala”. She
further stated that her mother was wrote Ex.P6. She denied
that Ex.P6 is fabricated document and not executed by the
Accused. In the cross-examination she stated that, 2014
onwards dispute arises between herself and Accused. She
further stated that, after 20.10.2015 she has not issued legal
notice to the Accused for repayment of Rs.40 lakhs. She denied
21
C.C.No.56255/2021
that, she managed with secretary of the Accused and obtained
blank stamp paper and signed blank cheques, which were given
by the Accused to his secretary. It is further stated that, Ex.P6
is addressed to her mother. It is denied by the PW1 that, there
is no money transaction between her mother and Accused. She
further denied that she has no financial capacity to lend to
Accused. In the cross-examination PW1 stated that, she
collected two cheques from the Accused in the month of April
2021. She further stated that Ex.P1 is the one cheque and from
another cheque her mother was filed complaint against the
Accused. It is further denied by the PW1 that, he had issued
notice to the Accused on wrong address with malafide intention.
23. To rebut the presumption, the Accused examined
himself as DW1. He deposed that, he did not borrow any
amount from Complainant at any point of time. He further
deposed that he never issue any cheque in favour of
Complainant at any point of time. It is further deposed that, he
produced Telugu movies since 2009 and in fact he booked the
Complainant to act in ‘Paisa’ movie and given an amount of
Rs.15 lakhs towards advacne in the year 2012 and
subsequently on the advise of the director of the movie, he
22
C.C.No.56255/2021
removed the Complainant from movie and booked another
heroine. It is further deposed that for returning of advance
amount of Rs.15 lakhs the Complainant issued cheque bearing
No.760064 for Rs.5,25,000/- as a part payment, which belongs
to her mother and it was dishonoured and out of friendship the
Accused has not initiate any criminal case against the
Complainant and her mother. It is further deposed that, on
4.4.2016 he signed blank cheque book, bank passbook and
signed blank non-judicial stamp papers were misplaced for
which he gave complaint at Madhapura police station and
police people demanded to inform the cheque numbers and also
value of stamp papers which he could not furnish, therefore,
the police people gave an endorsement as ‘the application has
failed to submit the relevant documents, hence rejected’ which
as per Ex.D8. It is further deposed that after filing of this
complaint, he came to know that the Complainant and her
mother managed his secretary and took blank signed cheques
and blank stamp papers in the year 2016. It is further deposed
that, the Complainant has no financial capacity to lent such
huge amount. It is further deposed that, he have not received
any legal notice from the Complainant and she sent the notice
23
C.C.No.56255/2021
to the wrong address which he never resided in that address. It
is further deposed that, he is a physically handicapped person,
he lost his right hand in an accident and he put his signatures
with left hand, because of that he used to put his signatures on
blank stamp papers, blank signed cheques and also blank letter
head papers and same were given to his secretary and in turn
she used to give payments to the artists and employees in his
absence. It is further deposed that the Complainant managed
his secretary and had taken blank signed stamp papers and
signed blank cheques from his secretary and same fact was
came to know by him after receiving the court summons. It is
further deposed that, as per the complaint the transaction
between the Complainant and Accused in the year 2013-14 and
Ex.P1 cheque was dtd.5.7.2021. Therefore, it is time barred
debt.
24. To support of his oral evidence, the Accused placed
his Aadhaar Card as per Ex.D1, certified copy of complaint in
C.C.No.18305/2022 as per Ex.D2 and he produced other
documents which marked at Ex.D3 to 9. In the cross-
examination he stated that, Rs.15 lakhs advance amount was
paid by him through cash as advance amount of ‘Paisa’ movie.
24
C.C.No.56255/2021
He further stated that Rs.15 lakhs amount was withdrawn by
him from Axis Bank account. In the cross-examination he
stated that, his entire cheque book was lost and he stop
payment to the bank through online. He further stated in the
cross-examination that, till today the Accused and his secretary
Ms. Anupama Jyothy are in phone contact. He denied that he
never filed any complaint against Ms. Anupama Jyothy. In the
cross-examination Ex.P6 stamp paper was purchased by his
office staff. He further stated that, he never signed the
document and agreements without he read over. He admits that
the signature on the Ex.P6 is belongs to him. He denied that,
after read over and after knowledge only, he signed on Ex.P6.
He denied that Ex.P6 is the document which shows that, he
received Rs.40 lakhs from the Complainant and her mother. He
further admits that, Ex.P1 cheque belongs to his account and
also admits his signature on Ex.P1. He stated in the cross-
examination that, ‘Paisa’ movie was released in the month of
August 2014. He denied that for the ‘Paisa’ movie he was not
advanced any amount to the Complainant. He unable to say
that handwriting on Ex.P1. He denied that, towards repayment
of loan amount, he issued Ex.P1 in favour of Complainant. He
25
C.C.No.56255/2021
denied that, Ex.D6 was executed in his office. It is further
stated that Ex.D3 cheque was issued mother of the
Complainant. He further stated that with respect of Ex.D3 he
was not taken any legal action against the mother of the
Complainant. He denied that, as he was executed Ex.D6 he
liable to pay cheque amount to the Complainant.
25. Considering the oral and documentary evidence
placed by both parties, it is clear that the Complainant is a
celebrity and actress and artist and created her own identity in
film industry. It is further clear that Accused is a producer of
Telugu film industry. It is further clear that there is a financial
transaction between Complainant, Accused and Complainant’s
mother. It is further clear that, Ex.P6 document was executed
in the year 2015. Further, as per the contention of the
Complainant, it is clear the Complainant was lent an amount of
Rs.35 lakhs to the Accused in the year 2013 to 2014. Further it
is clear that, Ex.P1 cheque was issued in the year 2021. It is
admitted by the Accused that, since 2010 to 2016 she was very
busy actress and also he admits that, actors and actresses take
advances to act in movies. He further admits that, when the
actress is been removed, the producers would ask the actor and
26
C.C.No.56255/2021
actresses to return the amount. In the present case Accused
stated that he had paid Rs.15 lakhs as an advance amount to
the Complainant for the ‘Paisa’. Since the director of that film
was told him to remove thee actress i.e., Complainant.
Therefore, the Complainant removed from the ‘Paisa’ movie and
in the place of Complainant, another actress was taken.
Therefore, the Accused asked for repayment of Rs.15 lakhs
advance amount from the Complainant. It is further stated by
the Accused that for the repayment of said advance amount,
the mother of the Complainant was issued cheque for
Rs.5,25,000/- on 22.4.2023 and said cheque was dishonoured,
which is admitted by the Complainant also in her cross-
examination. The case of the Complainant is that she was lent
Rs.35 lakhs to the Accused in the year 2013-14. She further
stated that Rs.40 lakhs was paid by her in different
installments to the Accused. It is pertaining to note that in the
legal notice as well as in the complaint, it is stated by the
Complainant that, she was lent Rs.35 lakhs to the Accused.
Further it stated that towards damages and loss incurred for
that, the Accused agreed to pay additional amount of Rs.15
27
C.C.No.56255/2021
lakhs. Therefore, the Accused has issued Ex.P1 cheque for
Rs.50 lakhs in favour of Complainant.
26. On the other hand, the defence of the Accused is that,
he lost his right hand in the accident and he could not signed
from right hand and he used to his left hand for signature and
writing. Therefore, he signed on the blank cheques and blank
stamp papers and said blank stamp papers cheque book was
hand over to his secretary by name Ms. Anupama Jyothi for the
purpose of payment to the artists and employees in his
absence. The Complainant managed his secretary and colluding
with the secretary, had taken blanks signed stamp papers and
signed blank cheques from his secretary had misused the same.
On the other hand, he further taken defence that, his signed
blank cheque book, bank passbook and singed blank stamp
papers were misplaced, for that he have a police complaint to
the Police Inspector, Madhapura on 4.4.2016. In the defence
he has taken two contentions one is that, his signed cheque
books and other papers were misplaced and he lodged
complaint before the police and another contention is that, the
Complainant colluding with his secretary, take signed blank
cheques and signed stamp papers. Ex.D8 is the police
28
C.C.No.56255/2021
endorsement, in which it is mentioned that his application has
been rejected for the reason that ‘the applicant has failed to
submit relevant documents, hence rejected. The Accused has
not produced any such complaint or application filed by him
before Madhapura police station. Therefore, the contention
taken by the Accused is that, his signed cheque book, passbook
and non judicial stamp papers were misplaced, is not
sustainable. On the other hand, the has taken another
contention that, the Complainant colluding with his secretary
Ms. Anupama Jyothy secure the signed blank cheques and
signed non judicial stamp papers and misused by her by filing
of this complaint. It is pertaining to note hat to prove this
contention, the Accused has not examined said Ms. Anupama
Jyothy. It is pertaining to note that in the cross-examination of
DW1, Accused stated that, till today Ms. Anupama Jyothy in his
contact. Event that the Accused has not examined before this
court for the allegation made against her. Further the Accused
has taken any legal action against the said Ms. Anupama
Jyothy and Complainant for misusing of his signed blank
cheques and signed blank stamp papers. Therefore, this
contention is also not proved by the Accused.
29
C.C.No.56255/2021
27. Ex.P6 is the undertaking letter executed by the
Accused in favour of mother of the Complainant by name
Mrs.Anitha Reshma Garlani. On perusal of Ex.P6 the stamp
paper of the Ex.P6 was purchased by the Accused on
16.4.2014. On reading of Ex.P6 it is stated by the Accused that,
he taken money sum of Rs.40 lakhs from the actress from
Sanjana and her mother and due to some financial problem, he
unable to clear the said loan from last two years and now he
promised to clear the said amount on 20.10.2015. As per Ex.P6
it was executed by the Accused on 9.9.2015. The Accused has
not denied his signature on Ex.P6. The contention of the
Accused that, the Ex.P6 was fabricated by the Complainant by
taking blank signed stamp paper from his secretary and created
Ex.P6 document. For this also the Accused has not taken any
legal action against the Complainant and his secretary for
fabrication and creation of Ex.P6. Therefore, the Accused has
failed to prove that his signed blank cheques and signed blank
stamp papers were misused by the Complainant and
Ms.Anupama Jyothy. Therefore, the Accused failed to rebut the
presumption u/Sec.139 of N.I Act.
30
C.C.No.56255/2021
28. The main defence of the Accused is that, the claim
made by the Complainant is time barred debt. As mentioned in
the complaint as well as in the cross-examination of PW1, she
clearly stated that she lent an amount of Rs.35 lakhs to the
Accused in the year 2013-14. It is further clearly stated that
cheque was issued by the Accused on 9.7.2021 and there is no
any acknowledgement in between 2013 to 2021. Therefore it is
time barred debt and it is not legally enforceable debt. On the
other hand, the learned counsel for Complainant argued that,
Ex.P6 is executed by the Accused by undertaking that he will
return Rs.40 lakhs amount to the Complainant and her mother
on 20.10.2015 and Accused is admitted signature on the
cheque and also not denied that Ex.P1 cheque was not belongs
to him. They further argued that, Accused has admitted in
Ex.D6 which executed in the year 2016 between mother of the
Complainant and Accused wherein he admits receipt of Rs.35
lakhs. Therefore, it is legally recoverable debt and it is not time
barred debt as per Sec.25 (2) of Indian Contract Act. In this
regard, they have relied judgement of Bombay High Court in
Cri.Rev.Petition 3/2005 in the case of Narendra V. Kanekar
31
C.C.No.56255/2021
V/s. The Bardez Taluka Co-op. Housing Mortgage Soc. Ltd.
and others wherein the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that;
“Clause 3 of 25 of Indian Contract Act in
substance does is not to revive a dead right, for the
right is never dead at any time, but, to resuscitate
remedy to enforce payment by suit, and if payment
could be enforced by a suit, it means that, it still had
the character of legally enforceable debt as
contemplated by explanation below section 138 of Act.
As far as aspect of case is concerned, the Learned
Division Bench observed that, to determine as to
whether or not a liability was legally enforceable, the
provisions of the Contract Act cannot be said to be
irrelevant. It can provide a cause for legal liability.
Although primary question answered by the Division
Bench was that a cheque becomes a promise to pay
u/Sec.23 of the Contract Act, 1872.”
29. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble High Court of
Bombay further held that;
“If a suit could be filed pursuant to a promise
made in writing and signed by the person to be
charged therewith, as contemplated by clause-3 of
Sec.25 of the Law of Contract, then in my view, the
debt becomes legally enforceable debt and if a cheque
is given in payment of such debt is dishonoured and
subsequently, the statutory notice is not compiled
32
C.C.No.56255/2021with, then the person making promise in writing and
issuing the cheque, would still be liable to be
punished u/Sec.138 of the Act.”
30. Further learned Counsel for Complainant relied no
decision of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in Cri.R.P.
No.238/1996 in the case of K. K. Ramakrishnan V/s. K.K.
Parthasaradhy and others wherein in para No.222 the Hon’ble
High Court of Kerala held that;
No.1 – “When a person issues a cheque, he
knowledge his liability to pay. In the event of cheque
being dishonoured on account of insufficiency of
funds he will not be entitled to claim that, the debt
had become time barred limitation and that the
liability was not thus legally enforceable. He would be
liable for penalty in case the charge proved against
him.”
31. Further the learned Counsel for Complainant relied
on decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case between
Dinesh B Chokshi and other Vs. Rahul Vasudeo Bhatt and
others. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court held in para No.19
and 20 that;
No.19 – “While recording our answers to the
first question, we have already held that the cheque
33
C.C.No.56255/2021
issued for discharge of debt which is barred by law of
limitation is itself a promise within the meaning of
sub-Sec.3 of Sec.25 of the Contract Act. A promise is
an agreement and such promise which is covered by
Sec.25 (3) of the Contract Act becomes enforceable
contact provided that the same is not otherwise void
under the Contract Act.
No.20 -Therefore, while answering second
question, we are specifically dealing with a case of
promise created by a cheque issued for discharge of a
time barred debt or liability. Once it is held that, a
cheque drawn for discharge of time barred debt
creates a promise which becomes enforceable
contract, it cannot be said that the cheque is drawn
in discharge of debt or liability which is not legally
enforceable. The promise in the form of a cheque
drawn in discharge of a time barred debt or liability
becomes enforceable by virtue of Sec.3 of Sec.25 of
the Contract Act. Thus, such cheques becomes a
cheque draw in discharge of a legally enforceable debt
as contemplated by explanation to Sec.138 of the said
Act. Therefore, even the second question will have to
be answered in the affirmative”.
32. On the other hand, the learned counsel for Accused
argued that, as per contention of the Complainant the
transaction took place between the parties in the year 2013-14
34
C.C.No.56255/2021
and Ex.P6 is executed in the year 2015 and EX.D6 is executed
in the year 2016 and Ex.P1 cheque was issued in the year
2021. In between 2013 to 2021 and in between 2016 to 2021
no acknowledgement between both parties and Ex.P6 is the
fabricated document. There is no whisper about the existence of
Ex.P6 document either in the legal notice or in the complaint or
in the examination in chief affidavit. Therefore, Ex.P6 is
fabricated document was created by the Complainant for this
case only. Further they argued that the mother of the
Complainant was not examined as the contention of the
Complainant is that, her mother was drafted Ex.P6 which
addressed to her mother and Accused undertake receipt of
Rs.40 lakhs and he will undertake he should be returned the
same on or before 20.10.2015.
33. Further the learned counsel for Accused argued that,
the Ex.P1 cheque was issued in the name of Archana Galrani
and complaint is filed in the name of Sanjjanna Archana
Galrani. In the cross-examination of PW1 in para No.14 she
deposed that, before her marriage, her name is mentioned the
bank account as ‘Archana Galrani’ and after marriage she gave
a letter to the bank authority for change of her name and her
35
C.C.No.56255/2021
marriage was performed on 18.10.2020. As per Ex.P2 bank
endorsement issued in the name of Archana Galrani Manohar.
It is pertaining note that in the cross-examination of Pw1, she
stated that, she has not mentioned changing of her name in
notice, complaint and examination in chief. Therefore, the
learned counsel for Accused argued that issuance of cheque in
the name of Complainant is doubtful. In the present case, it is
not seriously depute that Sanjjanna Archana Galrani, Archana
Galrani and Archana Galrani Manohar all are names of one
person. As she stated in the cross-examination that, after
marriage, her name is changed as Archana Galrani Manohar.
Therefore the contention take by the Accused that, issuance of
cheque by the Accused in the name of Complainant is not
sustainable.
34. As above stated, the main and strong defence of the
Accused is that, the claim is time barred debt, which is not
enforceable debt. In this regard, the learned counsel for
Accused relied on judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in Sasseriyil Joseph V/s. Devassia dtd.10.9.2001
wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that;
“We have heard the learned counsel for petitioner.
36
C.C.No.56255/2021
We have pursued the judgment of the Hon’ble
High Court of Kerala in Cri.Apl.No.161/1994
confirming the judgement/order of acquittal passed
by Additional.
Session Judge, Thalassery in
Cri.Apl.No.212/1992 holding inter alia that the
cheque in questions having been issued by the
Accused for due which was barred by limitation the
penal provision u/Sec.138 of the Negotiable
Instrument Act is not attracted in the case.
On the facts of the case as available on the
records and the clear and unambiguous provision in
the explanation to Sec.138 of the Negotiable
Instrument Act, the judgement of lower appellate
court as confirmed by the High Court is unassailed.
Therefore, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
Further the learned counsel for Accused relied on
judgement of Hon’ble Kerala High court in the case of
Sasseriyil Joseph V/s. Devassia dtd.22.9.2000 wherein the
Hon’ble Kerala High Court held that;
6 – “The only question that arises for consideration in
this application is whether the respondent who issued
the cheque in question in discharge of a time barred
debt is liable u/Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instrument
37
C.C.No.56255/2021Act. In this case, the Complainant had admitted that
the loan was advanced to the Accused in January
1988 and the cheque was issued in February 1991.
Thus, by the time, the cheque was issued, the debt
was barred by limitation since there was no valid
acknowledgement of the liability within the period of
limitation. According to the learned counsel for
Appellant, the promised made by the Accused to
repay the time barred debt, would come within the
purview of Sec.25 (3) of the Indian Contract Act.
No doubt, the promise to pay a time barred cheque
(debt) is valid and enforceable, if it is made in
writing and signed by the person to be charged
therewith. But, it is clear from Sec.138 of N.I. Act
that in order to attract the penal provisions in
the bouncing of a cheque in Chapter XVII, it is
essential that the dishonoured cheque should have
been issued in discharge in wholly, or in part, or
any debt or other liability of the drawer to the
payee. The explanation to Sec.138 defines the
expression debt or other liability as a legally
enforceable debt or other liability. The
explanation to the Sec. 138 reads as under;
Explanation – For the purpose of this section ‘debt
or other liability means a legally enforceable debt
or other liability’.
38
C.C.No.56255/2021
7 – Thus, Sec.138 is attracted only if the cheque is issued
for the discharge of legally enforceable debt or other
liability. In this case, admittedly, the cheque in question
was issued in discharge of a time barred debt. It cannot
be said that a time barred debt is a legally enforceable
debt. In this connection it is also relevant to note the
decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in
Giridhari Lal Rathi V/s. P.T.V. Ramanujachari 1997 (2)
Crimes 658 it has been held in that case that if a cheque
is issued for a time barred debt and it is dishonoured, the
Accused cannot be convicted u/Sec.138 of the N.I. Act
simply on the ground has the debt was not legally
recoverable. I am fully in agreement with the view
expressed by the learned Judge in the decision referred to
above.
8 – The learned counsel for Appellate placed strong
reliance on the decision of Madras High Court reported in
S.Krishnamurthy V/s. A.R. Rajan 1996 Cri.L.J.3552. In
that case, it was contended for the Accused the cheque in
question dtd.23.4.1989 alleged to have been issued in
respect of the debts including under the promissory notes
dtd.20.3.1985 and 8.4.1985 is not respect of legally
enforceable debts and liabilities, within the meaning of
Sec.138 of the N.I. Act since the debts under the Pro-notes
are barred by limitation on the date of issuance of the
cheque dtd.23.4.1989. But, the court found that in
respect of alleged two time barred pro-notes, the Accused
has paid interest on various dates and thereby the pro-
39
C.C.No.56255/2021
notes have not become time barred. In this case, the
Complainant has no case that the Accused has paid
interest on the amount borrowed from him in 1987 and
there valid acknowledgement of the debt within the period
of limitation. As noticed earlier, since there was no
acknowledgement of the debt before the expiry of 3
years from the date of loan, the debt was not legally
enforceable debt at the time of issuance of the cheque.
9 – For the reasons stated above, I find no reason to the
interfere with the order of acquittal passed by Addl.
Sessions Judge. I see no infirmity in the judgment of
lower court, this appeal is groundless and is liable to be
dismissed.
The above decisions of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in
the case of Sasseriyil Joseph V/s. Devassia is upheld by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as stated supra.
35. The learned counsel for Accused relied 1997 (1) ALT
Crl. Page 509 Andhra Pradesh High Court between Giridhari
Lal Rathi V/s. PTV Ramanujachari & another.
Further the judgement of Madras High Court CRI.RC (MD)
No.173/2015 in the case of C.Ramesh V/s. S. Sakthivel
Further relied on judgement of Hon’ble Andra Pradesh High
Court in 2015 (3) ALT Cri.Page 421 in the case of Gerard
40
C.C.No.56255/2021
Kollian V/s. M/s. Weis Electronics and Industrial Services
Pvt. Ltd and others.
Further, the judgement of Andhra Pradesh High Court in 2004
(1) ALR Cri. Page 39 in the case of A. Yesubabu V/s. D.
Appalaswamy and another
All above decisions are held that, time barred debt is not
legally enforceable debt and Accused is entitled for acquittal.
36. It is useful to refer the decision of Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka Kalburagi Bench in
Cri.Apl.No.200057/2016 in the case of Bidar Urban Co-op.
Bank Ltd., V/s. Mr. Girish S/o. Late Gunderao Kulkarni the
Hon’ble High Court observed that;
“Thus, for the purpose of filing within the ambit
of Sec.138 of the Act, one of the ingredients which is
required to be satisfied is that there is legally
enforceable debt. In the facts of present case, as noted
earlier, the amounts in question had been paid during
the period 1991 to1997, under the circumstances, the
period of limitation which is 3 years had clearly
expired by the end of the year 2000. Therefore, the
Cheques which were issued in the year 2002,
evidently were issued in respect of time-barred debts.
In view of the explanation to Sec.138 of the Act, a
debt or liability referred to in Sec.138 of the Act
41
C.C.No.56255/2021means a legally enforceable debt. Under the
circumstances, even if the case of the Complainant is
accepted that such Cheques had, in fact, been issued
by the Accused towards a debt of Rs.42 lakhs, even
then, the same would be relatable to a time-barred
debt and therefore, cannot be said to have been
issued in respect of a legally enforceable debt. The
provisions of Sec.138 of the Act would, therefore, not
be attracted in the facts of present case.
Further the Hon’ble Court in para 36 of its
judgement referred decision of Hon’ble High Court of
Bombay in a case of Chandra Mohan Mehta
Vs.William Rosario Fern Andes and Another reported
in 2008 SCC Online Bombay 1590 referring to its
earlier decisions and decision of Madras High Court
in the case of N.Ethirajulu Naidu Vs. K.R.
Chinnikrishnan Chettair AIR 1975 Madras 333 held
at para No.7 and 8……….
Further the Hon’ble High Court also referred
decision of Chacko Varkey Vs. Thommen Thomas AIR
1958 KER 31 of Full Bench of Kerala High Court
considered the scope of Sec.25 (3) of the Indian
Contract Act which also supports the Accused
defence.
The Hon’ble High Court in para No.39 observed
that; in view of the principles stated in the above
referred decision and discussion, it is evident that the
penal provision of Sec.138 of N.I. Act is applicable
42
C.C.No.56255/2021only to the Cheques which are issued for the
discharge in whole or in part, of any debt or other
liability, which according to explanation must be a
legally enforceable debt or other liability. A Cheque
given in discharge of a time barred debt will not
constitute an unconditional undertaking or promise
in writing either expressly or impliedly so as to attract
the criminal offence u/Sec.138 of N.I. Act. This was
elaborated in SASSERIYIL JOSEPH’s case (supra)
which is affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as
stated above. A Cheque given in discharge of a time-
barred debt will not constitute a promise in writing
not even an implied promise so as to attract a
criminal liability u/Sec.138 of N.I. Act.”
37. In the present case also admittedly the transaction
took place between the parties in the year 2013-14 and Ex.P6 is
executed on 9.9.2015. Ex.D6 is executed on 28.2.2016 and
cheque was issued on 5.7.2021. In between 2016 to 2021 there
is no any acknowledgement in writing by the either party. The
date of expiry of limitation was lapsed in the year 2019. The
cheque was issued after lapse of 5 years on execution of Ex.D6.
Therefore, the debt is clearly time barred debt which was not
enforceable under the law. Therefore, the present debt is not
legally enforceable at the time of issuance of Cheque, the time
43
C.C.No.56255/2021
limit for enforcement of cheque was lapsed. Therefore, the
Complainant failed to prove that, the Ex.P1 Cheque was issued
by the Accused for discharge of legally enforceable debt. On the
other hand, the Accused rebut that the Ex.P1 cheque was time
barred debt and it is not legally enforceable debt.
38. As observed in the above decisions, it is clear that,
the Cheque amount is time barred debt and it is not legally
enforceable debt. Therefore, the Accused is not liable to punish
u/Sec.138 of N.I. Act. The Complainant has not proved her
case as to commission of offence punishable u/Sec.138 of N.I.
Act by the Accused. Hence, I answer Point No.1 in the
Negative.
39. Point No.2 : In view of discussion held in Point No.1,
I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER
Acting U/S 255(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused is
acquitted for the offence punishable Under Section
138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
His personal bond stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected by me
and then pronounced in the open court on this 25th January, 2025)
(PARVEEN A BANKAPUR)
XXXIV ACJM, BENGALURU.
44
C.C.No.56255/2021
ANNEXURE
1. Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:
P.W.1 Mrs. Sanjjanna Archana Galrani
2. Documents marked on behalf of complainant:
Ex.P.1 Cheque Ex.P.2 Bank endorsement Ex.P.3 Office copy of legal notice Ex.P.4 Postal receipt Ex.P.5 Postal cover Ex.P.6 Payment Receipt
3. Witnesses examined on behalf of Accused:
D.W.1 Mr. Puppalla Ramesh Kumar
4. Documents marked on behalf of Accused:
Ex.D.1 Copy of Aadhaar Card
Ex.D.2 Certified copy of complaint in C.C
No.18305/2022
Ex.D.3 & 4 Certified copy of Cheques
Ex.D.5 Certified copy of bank endorsement
Ex.D.6 Certified copy of Agreement
Ex.D.7 Certified copy of notice
Ex.D.8 Endorsement issued the police
Ex.D.9 Certificate u/Sec.65 (B) of Indian Evidence Act
(PARVEEN A BANKAPUR)
XXXIV ACJM, BENGALURU.