Bangalore District Court
Manjunath B L vs Srikanth on 19 May, 2026
KABC030432082023
IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
:: PRESENT ::
SMT. PAVITHRA. R, B.A.L, L.L.B.,
XIII ACJM, Bengaluru City.
C.C.NO. 24412/2023
Dated this the 19th day of May, 2026
COMPLAINANT: Sri. Manjunth. B.L,
S/o Sri. Lakshmanappa,
Aged about 38 years,
R/a. No.104, 7th Cross Road,
JKW Layout, Laggere,
Bengaluru - 560 058.
[By Mathru Law Firm, Advocates]
V/S
ACCUSED: Sri. Srikanth,
S/o P. Sudhakar,
Aged about 40 years,
R/a. No.42/20, 1st Main,
2nd Cross, Near Shettar Shop,
Muneshwaranagar,
Padmanabha Nagar,
Bengaluru - 560 070.
[By Sri. Anil M. Rathod, Advocate]
-2- C.C.No. 24412/2023
Offence complained of : U/s. 138 of N.I. Act.,
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Accused is convicted
Date of order : 19.05.2026
JUDGMENT
This is a private complaint filed by the complainant
under Sec.200 of Cr.P.C, r/w Sec.138 of Negotiable
Instrument Act, 1881 (in short referred to as N.I. Act).
The brief facts of the case are as under :
2. It is the case of the complainant that, in the
month of December 2018 the accused was in dire need of
financial assistance of Rs.3,00,000/- for his business and
he approached the complainant. The complainant with
hardship arranged the said money and paid to the accused
on 24.12.2018 by entering into a loan agreement in
presence of the witnesses. The accused agreed to repay the
said amount within four years from the receipt of payment
and agreed to pay nominal interest of Rs.50,000/- every
-3- C.C.No. 24412/2023
year. After the expiry of four years, the accused neither
paid the principal amount nor Rs.50,000/- interest and not
attended the call of the complainant and avoided the
complainant but somehow the complainant met the accused
in his home, finally accused issued a cheque bearing
No.449091 dated 22.11.2022 drawn on Canara Bank,
Banashankari II stage branch, Bengaluru for amount of
Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of the complainant for discharge of
accused legal debt i.e. principal amount Rs.3,00,000/- and
interest amount Rs.50,000/- per year for four years totally
Rs.2,00,000/-. Further, the accused assured that he will
maintain sufficient balance in his account and the cheque
would be honored on its presentation. Upon instruction of
the accused, the complainant presented the said cheque for
encashment through his Banker Indian Bank, Peenya
Industrial Estate Branch, Bengaluru, but the said cheque
was returned dishonored with reasons ‘Funds Insufficient’
with an endorsement dated 23.11.2022. Thereafter, the
complainant got issued legal notice to the accused on
-4- C.C.No. 24412/2023
14.12.2022 and the said notice was duly served on the
accused. In spite of issuance of notice the accused failed to
pay the cheque amount to the complainant and thus
committed the offence punishable u/s.138 of Negotiable
Instrument Act. Hence, this complaint.
3. On filing of this complaint, this court recorded
the sworn statement of the complainant and took
cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the
accused. Accused appeared before the Court through his
counsel and was enlarged on bail and substance of
accusation was read over to accused and he pleaded not
guilty having defense to make. Hence, the matter was
posted for recording of statement U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C.
Since there was incriminating evidence against the accused,
the statement as required under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C was
recorded and the matter was posted for cross-examination
of PW1. In spite of sufficient opportunity the accused has
failed to cross examine the PW.1, lead defense evidence and
remained absent. Hence cross-examination of PW1 and
-5- C.C.No. 24412/2023
defense evidence was taken as NIL as per order dated
11.02.2026 and 13.03.2026 respectively.
4. Heard the counsel for complainant. Arguments of
accused is taken as not addressed. Perused the averments
made in complaint, oral and documentary evidence of the
complainant and after hearing arguments, the points that
arises for determination are:-
1) Whether the complainant has proved that, he
lent a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the accused
as hand loan. To discharge the said liability
and interest accused issued Ex.P.1 cheque
amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- in favour of the
complainant and the same was dishonored.
Even after issuance of notice, the accused
has failed to pay the cheque amount and
thereby he is guilty of the offence punishable
under Sec.138 of N.I. Act?
2) What order?
5. Findings to the above points are as under:-
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative
Point No.2: As per final order for the
following:
-6- C.C.No. 24412/2023
REASONS
6. Point No.1:- According to the complaint
averments of the complainant, in the month of December
2018 the accused was in dire need of financial assistance of
Rs.3,00,000/- for his business and he approached the
complainant. The complainant with hardship arranged the
said money and paid to the accused on 24.12.2018 by
entering into a loan agreement in presence of the witnesses.
The accused agreed to repay the said amount within four
years from the receipt of payment and agreed to pay
nominal interest of Rs.50,000/- every year. After the expiry
of four years, the accused neither paid the principal amount
nor Rs.50,000/- interest and not attended the call of the
complainant and avoided the complainant but somehow
the complainant met the accused in his home, finally
accused issued Ex.P.1 cheque to the complainant. On
presentation of the said cheque, the same came to be
returned dishonored for the reasons “Funds Insufficient”
with an endorsement Ex.P.2 on 23.11.2022. The
-7- C.C.No. 24412/2023
complainant got issued a legal notice as per Ex.P.3 to the
accused on 14.12.2022 through his counsel and said notice
was duly served on the accused. Hence, the complainant
has filed this present complaint.
7. In order to prove the complainant’s case he got
examined as PW1 by filing an affidavit and got marked 6
documents at the time of his chief examination as follows…
(i) Ex.P.1 is the cheque of State Bank of India
bearing No.449091 dated 22.11.2022 for sum of
Rs.5,00,000/- alleged to have been issued by the
accused. Signature of the accused is marked
through complainant as Ex.P1(a).
(ii) Ex.P2 is the Bank Endorsement dated
23.11.2022 issued by Indian Bank, stating that
‘Funds Insufficient’.
(iii) Ex.P3 is the legal notice dated 14.12.2022
issued by the complainant through his advocate
to the accused demanding the payment of cheque
amount.
(iv) Ex.P.4 is the postal receipt.
(v) Ex.P.5 is the track consignment report.
(ix) Ex.P.6 is the certificate u/s.65B of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872.
-8- C.C.No. 24412/2023
8. In the chief-examination of P.W.1, he has
reiterated entire averments of the complaint and supported
his version. The accused has neither cross examined the
PW.1 nor taken any defense to disbelieve the complainant’s
case.
9. From the overall evaluation of oral and
documentary evidence of the complainant it is not in
dispute that the accused has issued cheque in favour of the
complainant. It is also not in dispute that the Ex.P.1
belongs to the accused and it was issued by the accused in
favour of the complainant subsequent to payment of hand
loan amount. These points are sufficient to raise
presumption available under Sec.118 and 139 of N.I. Act.
That the accused has not taken any defense either denying
his signature or issuance of cheque.
10. Since the cheque belongs to the accused account
and also for the reason that the same was personally issued
-9- C.C.No. 24412/2023
to the complainant by the accused, the complainant is
benefited to raise presumption under Sec.118 and 139 of
N.I. Act. Thus until and unless the contrary is proved it is
presumed that the cheque Ex.P.1 is issued for the purpose
of legal liability.
11. Now the burden shifts on the accused to rebut
the presumption under Sec.118 and 139 of N.I Act from the
defense points either by giving a standard proof or by
establishing the same under the principles of
preponderance of probabilities. As discussed above, the
accused has failed to take any defense in this case either by
cross examining the PW.1 or by leading defense evidence.
12. It is settled position of law that after raising
presumption under Sec.118 and 139 of N.I Act, the burden
shifts on the accused to rebut the said presumption by
establishing his defense under the principles of
preponderance of probabilities in the present case. There is
– 10 – C.C.No. 24412/2023
no cogent evidence by the accused, mere denying the
complainant’s case in a statement recorded under section
313 of Cr.P.C does not weakens the complainant’s case and
the same is insufficient to rebut the presumption. The said
aspect is discussed in detail in a decision rendered by
Hon’ble High court of Karnataka in “Sripad Vs. Ramadas M.
Shet, in Cri. Appl. No. 2689/2009 as hereunder:
“Mere a distorted version or mere
taking up the plea or the defence that he
is not liable to pay any amount or he
discharged the amount are not sufficient
to put back the burden on to the
complainant.”
13. Thus, the above ratio is aptly applicable to the
facts of the case. The accused has failed to establish his
defense points by means of tendering related witnesses and
documentary proof as discussed supra. Thus for all these
reasons this court finds that the accused to make payment
towards hand loan amount issued the Ex.P1 cheque to the
– 11 – C.C.No. 24412/2023
complainant without having sufficient funds intentionally
and failed to repay the cheque amount after service of notice
since the said cheque was dishonored. That the accused
have utterly failed to establish preponderance of
probabilities in establishing its defence and further failed to
rebut the initial presumption under section 118 and 139 of
N.I. Act. Therefore, in the light of above discussion, the
Court answer point No.1 in the Affirmative.
14. Point No.2:- In view of the reasons stated and
discussed above the complainant has proved the guilt of the
accused punishable under Sec.138 of N.I. Act. It is
necessary to note that the said offence is of Civil wrong.
Hence it is just and necessary to award sentence of fine
instead of sentence of imprisonment. Transaction between
the parties is of the December 2018. Considering the age of
transaction, complaint and time vested by the complainant
in this litigation the complainant should be compensated
appropriately. However, the accused has already agreed and
issued cheque for interest amount along with principal
– 12 – C.C.No. 24412/2023
which is more than the minimum interest rate prescribed as
per RBI guidelines, hence imposing interest on the cheque
amount will become burdensome on the accused. The
complainant has agreed to receive the interest amount more
than the prescribed rate as per RBI guidelines without
having any money lending license and thus he is not
entitled to further interest. Under these circumstances if
the cheque amount is granted as compensation, then same
would serve the purpose of the complaint. Hence,
considering all these aspects this court proceed to pass the
following:-
ORDER
Acting under Section Sec.255(2) of
Cr.P.C accused is hereby convicted for the
offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I Act
and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,05,000/-
(Rupees Five Lakh Five Thousand Only), in
default of payment of fine amount, accused
shall undergo simple imprisonment for 6
months.
Further, acting under Sec.357(1)(b) of
Cr.P.C it is ordered that Rs.5,00,000/-
– 13 – C.C.No. 24412/2023
(Rupees Five Lakh Only), shall be paid to the
complainant as a compensation, remaining
fine amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five
Thousand Only) to the State for the
expenses incurred in the prosecution.
The bail bond of the accused stands
canceled after expiry of the appeal period.(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, revised,
corrected, signed and then pronounced in the open court on this the 19 th
day of May, 2026)(PAVITHRA R.)
XIII ACJM, BENGALURU CITYANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR COMPLAINANT:
PW.1 Sri. Manjunath. B.L.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR ACCUSED:
– NIL –
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P.1 : Original Cheque
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of the accused
Ex.P.2 : Bank endorsement
Ex.P.3 : Copy of Legal Notice
- 14 - C.C.No. 24412/2023
Ex.P.4 : Postal receipt
Ex.P.5 : Track consignment report
Ex.P.6 : Certificate u/s.65B of the Indian
Evidence Act
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR ACCUSED:
– NIL –
Digitally
signed by
PAVITHRA R
PAVITHRA
Date:
R 2026.05.20
15:28:17
+0530
XIII ACJM, BENGALURU CITY.
