Bangalore District Court
Nagesh S G vs M/S Chemm Finance Ltd., Rep By … on 20 May, 2026
KABC0A0027942025
IN THE COURT OF THE LXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE AT MAYO HALL
BENGALURU, (CCH-73)
Present:
Sri. Sreepada N,
B.Com., L.L.M.,
LXXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Dated this the 20th day of May 2026
Crl. Appeal. No.25311/2025
Appellant/ Sri. Nagesh.S.G,
Accused:- S/o Sri. Govindappa.M
Aged about 27 years,
R/at Shetty Kothnur Village & Post,
Vakkaleri Hobli,
Kolar Taluk & District-563130
(By Sri. Kishan Dutt Kalaskar - Adv.,)
V/s
Respondent/ M/s Chemm Finance Limited,
Complainant: No.19, 3rd Cross, K.C.D Complex,
Mission Road,
Bengaluru-560027.
Represented by its CEO,
Sri. Bhuvanendra Takoor,
(By Sri. S.D.N Prasad - Adv.,)
2 Crl.Appeal No.25311/2025
JUDGMENT
This appeal is by the Accusedbefore the trial
court, who suffered the judgment of conviction for the
offence punishable U/Sec.138 of NI Act passed by
XIV ACJM, Bengaluru, in CC.No.59207/2022, dtd.
16.1.2025, challenging the validity of the judgment.
2. For the sake of convenience the parties
hereinafter will be referred to with their ranking
assigned before the trial court.
3. The facts of the case:-
The Complainant initiated private complaint
under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., against the Accused,
alleging that the Complainant is a limited company
incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act.
The Accused was appointed as ‘Gold Loan Assistant’
in Complainant’s Company. The job specification of
the Accused is customer relationship management,
business development, i.e., Gold Loans/Debentures,
Back Office operation, other administrative day-to-
day activities of the branch and such other duties
assigned by the manager from time to time. The
3 Crl.Appeal No.25311/2025Accused was posted to the branch office of the
complainant at Malur, Kolar District. When the
Branch Manager of the Malur Branch of the
Complainant was on leave, the Accused was acting
as in-charge Branch Manager of the said branch.
During that period, he had got pledged spurious gold
ornaments in the fictitious names at Malur Branch of
the Complainant worth Rs.5,61,500/-. During the
course of periodical audit in the month of July 2019,
it was found that the gold pledged by the so-called
pledgors in the absence of branch manager are
spurious in nature and the Accused got pledged the
same in the names of the fictitious persons and had
used the loan proceeds for his personal purpose. In
fact, no such persons had visited the Malur Branch of
the Complainant. In this regard, Accused had
addressed a letter dated 13.07.2019 to the
Complainant. The Complainant in turn lodged a
complaint against the Accused at Malur police Station
and the same has been registered as NCR
No.87/2020. The Accused has admitted the guilt and
offered to clear the entire sum of Rs.5,61,500/-
within a period a two weeks and requested not to
take any legal action. In token of his promise, he had
4 Crl.Appeal No.25311/2025paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant
towards the credit of the said loan accounts. For
balance sum of Rs.5,11,500/-, he had issued a
cheque bearing No.503686 dtd 10.05.2020, drawn
on State Bank of India, Malur Branch, Kolar District.
When the Complainant presented the said cheque for
encashment, it was returned unpaid on 15.05.2020
with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. Thereafter,
the Complainant got issued a legal notice to the
Accused on 26.05.2020 calling upon him to pay the
amount covered under the dishonored cheque. The
said notice duly served on the Accused. Instead of
complying with the demands made in the notice, the
Accused sent an untenable reply dtd. 6.6.2020 and
thereby, the Appellant has committed the offense
punishable under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act. Thereafter the Complainant approached the Trial
Court for appropriate legal action against the
Accused.
4. Pursuant to summons the Accused entered
appearance through her Counsel before the Trial
Court. The substance of the accusation was read
over and explained to the Accused in the language
5 Crl.Appeal No.25311/2025
known to her. The Accused pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried. The Complainant got examined
herself as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16
documents and closed his side. The Accused got
examined himself as DW.1 and got marked Ex.D.1 to
Ex.D.10 and closed his side.
5. The trial court after hearing the counsel for
Complainant, convicted the Accused for the offence
punishable U/Sec.138 of NI Act vide Judgment dtd.
16.1.2025.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment of
conviction, the Accused is in appeal on the following
grounds:
1. The Trial Court failed to appreciate that
the Ex.P.1 Cheque was taken as
security at the time of appoint (2015)
and was not issued towards any legally
enforceable debt. The statutory
presumption under Section 118 & 139 of
Negotiable Instruments Act stood
rebutted.
2. The Complainant did not produce any
spurious gold ornaments as allegedly
claimed by the Complainant, loan
documents, account statements or proof
6 Crl.Appeal No.25311/2025of disbursement to establish liability of
Rs.5,11,500/- and repayment made by
Appellant amounting to Rs.6,00,000/-
mere possession of a Cheque cannot
constitute liability without proof of debt.
3. The Trial Court erred in relying on
Ex.P.10. Both documents were obtained
under coercion and threat. No
independent witness or corroborative
materials was produced to prove
voluntary execution.
4. The Trial Court failed to assess the
document produced by the Accused.
5. The findings arrived by the Trial Court
are against the laws of the land.
6. The Trial Court should not have accepted
the case of the Complainant.
7. The Trial Court should have accepted the
defense of the Appellant.
8. The observations made by the Trial Court
in the impugned judgment is perverse,
arbitrary and liable to be set aside.
9. The observations made by the Trial Court
in its order dtd: 27.7.2024 dismissing
7 Crl.Appeal No.25311/2025
the IA filed by the Accused under
Section 91 of Cr.P.C.
10. The impugned judgment passed by the
Trial Court is not in accordance with
provisions of Cr.P.C., as such the
impugned judgment is to be set aside.
11. The Trial Court did not consider its
observation while convicting the
Accused regarding dismissal of IA dtd:
27.7.2024, which was filed by the
Accused under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., for
impounding of documents from the
Complainant Company the Trial Court
stated that the burden rests on the
Complainant to prove pledging of
duplicate gold ornaments as alleged
against the Accused hence it is not
desirable to summon the documents as
prayed by the Accused. Surprisingly the
Complainant vehemently opposed to
produce the documents as prayed for by
the Appellant under Section 91 of
Cr.P.C., by filing detail objections
statement mainly contending that the
documents sought to be summoned by
the Accused are not required for
adjudication of the complaint.
8 Crl.Appeal No.25311/2025
12. Under the above grounds the Appellant
sought for acquittal by allowing the appeal.
7. Heard both sides. Perused the written
arguments filed by the counsel for Appellant.
8. Perused the evidence, documents on record
and also impugned Judgment of conviction passed
by the Trial Court.
9. On re-appreciation of the evidence,
documents on record, the following points would
emerge for the consideration of this court.
1. Whether the Appellant proves
that the cheque in question
was not issued towards any
legally recoverable debt?
2. Whether the Judgment of
conviction passed by the Trial
Court calls for interference by
the hands of this court?
3. What Order?
10. My finding on the above points are as
under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative.
9 Crl.Appeal No.25311/2025
Point No.2 : In the Negative.
Point No.3 : As per final order for
the following :
REASONS
11. POINT NOs.1 and 2:-
Since the above two points are interlinked, in
order to avoid repetition of facts the above points
have been taken up together for consideration.
12. Before re-appreciating the evidence on
record, it is necessary to refer some of the latest
rulings of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2019
(3) KCCR 2473 (SC) (Basalingappa V/s
Mudibasappa), the Hon’ble Apex Court while
considering several earlier rulings on the offence
U/Sec.138 of NI Act and also on the presumption
U/Sec.118 and 139 of NI Act, at Para 23 was
pleased to observe as follows:
23. We having noticed the ratio
laid down by this Court in above cases
on Sections 118(a) and 139, we now
summarise the principles enumerated
by this Court in following manner:-
(i) Once the execution of cheque is
admitted Section 139 of the Act
mandates a presumption that the
10 Crl.Appeal No.25311/2025cheque was for the discharge of any
debt or other liability.
(ii) The presumption under
Section 139 is a rebuttable
presumption and the onus is on the
Accused to raise the probable defence.
The standard of proof for rebutting
the presumption is that of
preponderance of probabilities.
(iii) To rebut the presumption, it
is open for the Accused to rely on
evidence led by him or Accused can
also rely on the materials submitted
by the Complainant in order to raise a
probable defence. Inference of
preponderance of probabilities can be
drawn not only from the materials
brought on record by the parties but
also by reference to the circumstances
upon which they rely.
(iv) That it is not necessary for the
Accused to come in the witness box in
support of his defence, Sec.139
imposed an evidentiary burden and
not a persuasive burden.
(v) It is not necessary for the
Accused to come in the witness box to
support his defence.
13. In another ruling reported in AIR 2010 SC
1898 (Rangappa V/s Mohan), observed as under:-
11 Crl.Appeal No.25311/2025
“Existence of legally recoverable
debt or liability- The presumption
mandated by Section 139 of the Act
does indeed include the existence of a
legally enforceable debt or liability.
This is of course in the nature of a
rebuttable presumption and it is open
to the Accused to raise a defence
wherein the existence of a legally
enforceable debt or liability can be
contested. However, there can be no
doubt that there is an initial
presumption which favours the
Complainant. 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
instruments. While Section 138 of the
Act specifies a strong criminal remedy
in relation to the dishonour of
cheques, the rebuttable presumption
under Section 139, is a device to
prevent undue delay in the course of
litigation. However, it must be
remembered that the offence made
punishable by Section 138 can be
better described as a regulatory
offence since the bouncing of a cheque
is largely in the nature of a civil
wrong whose impact is usually
confined to the private parties
involved in commercial transactions.
In such a scenario, the test of
proportionality should guide the
construction and interpretation of
reverse onus clauses and the Accused/
defendant cannot be expected to
12 Crl.Appeal No.25311/2025discharge an unduly high standard or
proof. In the absence of compelling
justifications, reverse onus clauses
usually impose an evidentiary burden
and not a persuasive burden. Keeping
this in view, it is a settled position
that when an Accused has to rebut the
presumption under Section 139, the
standard of proof for doing so is that
of ‘preponderance of probabilities’.
Therefore, if the Accused is able to
raise a probable defence which creates
doubts about the existence of a legally
enforceable debt or liability, the
prosecution can fail. The Accused can
rely on the materials submitted by the
Complainant and it is conceivable that
in some cases the Accused may not
need to adduce evidence of his/her
own.”
14. Keeping in view the broad principles laid
down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, let me re-appreciate
the evidence and documents on record.
15. The definite case of the
Complainant/Respondent is that the Complainant is
a limited company and the Accused was appointed
as ‘Gold Loan Assistant’ in Complainant’s Company.
When the Branch Manager of the Malur Branch of the
Complainant was on leave, the Accused was acting
as in-charge Branch Manager of the said branch and
13 Crl.Appeal No.25311/2025
during that period, the Accused got pledged spurious
gold ornaments in the fictitious names at Malur
Branch of the Complainant worth Rs.5,61,500/-.
During the course of periodical audit in the month of
July 2019, it was found that the gold pledged by the
pledgers in the absence of Branch Manager are
spurious in nature and the Accused got pledged the
same in the names of the fictitious persons and no
such persons have visited the Malur Branch of the
Complainant for pledging gold which are supported
by CCTV footage. In this regard, Accused had
addressed a letter dtd. 13.07.2019 to the
Complainant. Even the Complainant lodged
complaint against the Accused at Malur police Station
and the said fact was brought to the notice of the
Accused, he has admitted the guilt and offered to
clear the entire sum of Rs.5,61,500/- within a period
a two weeks and requested not to take any legal
action. As token of his promise, he had paid a sum of
Rs.50,000/- to the Complainant and for discharge of
balance amount of Rs.5,11,500/-, he had issued
cheque and promised that it would be honoured on
its presentation. On the said assurance and promise
the Complainant presented the said cheque for
14 Crl.Appeal No.25311/2025
encashment, but, it came to be dishonoured as
‘funds insufficient’. Therefore, the Complainant got
issued legal notice to the Accused on 26.05.2020
calling upon him to pay the amount. Even though the
said notice duly served upon the Accused, instead of
complying the said notice, he has sent untenable
reply by taking false contentions. Therefore, the
Complainant constrained to file the complaint under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
16. The Chief Executive Officer of the
Complainant in order to prove the averments of
complaint got examined as PW.1 and got marked
documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12 and even during the
course of cross of DW.1 also Ex.P.13 to Ex.P.16 were
got marked on confrontation. On the other hand, the
Accused examined himself as DW.1 and got marked
documents at Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.10.
17. Let me go through the documentary
evidence produced by the Complainant before the
Trial Court. Ex.P.1 is the Cheque issued by the
Accused dtd: 10.5.2020. Ex.P.2 is the Cheque return
memo dtd: 15.5.2020. Ex.P.3 is the Office copy of
Legal Notice dtd: 26.5.2020. Ex.P.4 is the RPAD
15 Crl.Appeal No.25311/2025
Receipt. Ex.P.5 is the Reply Notice issued by the
Accused. Ex.P.6 is the Letter addressed to the
Postmaster for not receiving acknowledgment. Ex.P.7
is the Letter issued by the Inspector of Posts,
Customer Care Centre. Ex.P.8 is the Letter addressed
by Senior Superintendent of Post Officer with regard
to delivery of notice which sent by the Complainant.
Ex.P.9 is the Board Resolution of the Complainant.
Ex.P.10 is the Letter dtd: 13.7.2019 which allegedly
written by the Accused to the Complainant. Ex.P.11
is the copy of Police Complaint lodged by the
Complainant against the Accused. Ex.P.12 is the
Endorsement given by the Police. Ex.P.13 is the
document pertaining to one Thimmanna Bhat, who
was the then Manager of the Complainant. Ex.P.14 is
the Bio-Data of the said Thimmanna Bhat. Ex.P.15 &
Ex.P.16 are the copies of Aadhar Card and PAN Card
of the said Thimmanna Bhat. The present complaint
has been filed before the Trial Court on 26.6.2020.
On perusal of all the above documents with date of
filing of the complaint and dates of documents, it is
clear that before filing of the complaint the
Complainant has complied with all the requirements
of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and
16 Crl.Appeal No.25311/2025
the present complaint is filed well within the period
of limitation and it is in accordance with the
provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act.
18. On perusal of the evidence of the Accused it
is clear that he has taken up contention that he had
joined the Complainant Company in the year 2015
and worked till 2019. At the time of joining the duty
the Complainant had taken his SSCL Certificate and
one blank Cheque as a security. He has tendered his
resignation to the job and secured job in another
company. After he tendered resignation he had been
called for by the Complainant branch and told that
duplicate ornaments were pledged during his tenure
and he has been asked to confess the guilt and remit
Rs.6,00,000/-. Even CEO of the Complainant
threatened him to lodge complaint to the Police,
saying that he has CCTV footage. Even CEO had
managed to get letter from him. The CEO has scarred
with his words, he has returned home and managed
to arrange Rs.6,00,000/- and remitted the same to
the Complainant. Inspite of repeated request with the
Complainant to return his blank signed Cheque, they
did not return the same. Even though he has been
17 Crl.Appeal No.25311/2025
directed to furnish notarized affidavit. After receipt of
the affidavit also they did not return the Cheque. The
Police were called him and after enquiry they
realized that it is a false complaint lodged by the
Complainant. Further contended that by misusing his
blank signed Cheque the Complainant has filed the
present complaint.
19. The Accused in support of his oral evidence
has produced Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.10. Ex.D.1 is the copy
of Letter dtd: 16.6.2020 alleged to be issued to the
then Manager of the Complainant. Ex.D.2 to Ex.D.9
are the Receipts which alleged to be issued by the
Complainant after receiving Rs.6,00,000/- amount
from the Accused. Ex.D.10 is the affidavit of the
Accused.
20. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant in
his written arguments has mainly concentrated that
there is no legally enforceable debt and the security
Cheque has been misused by the Complainant.
Further also contended that by way of coercion
documents have been obtained from the Accused by
the Complainant. Further also contended that even
though the security Cheque had been issued in the
18 Crl.Appeal No.25311/2025
year 2015 but the same has been misused in the
year 2019-2020. Even though the Appellant has filed
an application before the Trial Court to produce the
necessary documents in connection with the loan
accounts statement etc., but purposefully the
Complainant has not produced the same. The Trial
Court has not at all considered all these facts. Even
in order to rebut the case of the Complainant
sufficient oral and documentary evidence have been
produced by the Accused before the Trial Court but
the same are not at all properly considered by the
Trial Court. Once the Accused produced probable
defense, the burden shifted back to the Complainant
and the burden is completely remained undischarged
by the Complainant. The Trial Court without
considering the oral and documentary evidence
produced by the Accused in prospective manner has
wrongly convicted the Accused etc.
21. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent in
his arguments submitted that the Trial Court after
properly appreciating the oral and documentary
evidence of both side had properly come to
conclusion that the Cheque in question has been
19 Crl.Appeal No.25311/2025
issued by the Accused for discharge of legally
payable debt, but not for security as contended by
the Appellant. There is no reason assigned in the
appeal to interfere with the judgment of the Trial
Court. The Accused by creating several documents
led his evidence before the Trial Court, but the Trial
Court has properly come to conclusion that all the
documents produced by the Accused are created for
the purpose of this case. Accordingly, he prayed to
confirm the judgment of the Trial Court.
22. On perusal of the case of the Complainant
and the documents it is clear that when the Accused
was acting as an incharge Branch Manager of
Complainant Company, got pledged the duplicate
gold ornaments in the name of fictitious persons and
taken loan of Rs.5,61,500/-, the said fact came to
the knowledge of the Complainant at the time of
periodical audit conducted in the July 2019. Further
according to Ex.P.10 the Accused has confessed the
guilt by issuing his letter in which he has issued
Ex.P.1 Cheque. Though the Accused contended that
Ex.P.1 was duly issued at the time of joining his
service, but as observed by the Trial Court in its
20 Crl.Appeal No.25311/2025
judgment, on perusal of the Ex.P.1 it appears that the
Banker had issued the Cheque leaves to the Accused
on 23.12.2016 which is appearing on the left hand
side of the Ex.P.1. Therefore, the contention of the
Accused that he had issued Ex.P.1 in the year 2015
cannot be believed. On the other hand, it has been
issued along with Ex.P.10 on 13.7.2019.
23. Though the Accused contended that by
putting him in fear, Ex.P.10 has been obtained by the
Complainant. However, nobody had prevented the
Accused to take suitable legal action against the
Complainant. If really the Complainant had obtained
the Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.10 by putting him in fear,
definitely the Accused would have taken action
against the Complainant, the non-taking of any
action in this regard itself will clearly goes to show
that in order to discharge the legally payable debt as
stated in Ex.P.10 only he had issued Ex.P.1. Further
on perusal of the cross-examination of DW.1 also it is
clear that the Accused clearly admitted that he has
not taken any legal action against the Complainant
to get back his security Cheque.
21 Crl.Appeal No.25311/2025
24. It is further argued by the Learned Counsel
for the Appellant herein is that Ex.D.2 to Ex.D.9
produced by the Accused reveals that, already the
Accused has remitted a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- to the
Complainant and the same were not properly
considered by the Trial Court. This Court carefully
perused the said documents and according to the
Appellant those receipts were issued by the then
Branch Manager of the Complainant. On the other
hand, the Complainant contended that those
documents have been created by the Accused for the
purpose of this case. Admittedly, as pointed out by
the Trial Court in its judgment the Accused has
clearly admitted in his cross-examination that the
signature of then Manager of Complainant by name
T.N. Bhat appeared on Ex.P.13 to Ex.P.16 and the
signature appeared on Ex.D.2 to Ex.D.9 are all
together different. Moreover, Ex.P.13 to Ex.P.16 have
been marked by way of confrontation during the
course of cross-examination of DW.1 itself. So, this
itself clearly goes to show that Ex.D.2 to Ex.D.9
might have been created by the Accused for the
purpose of this case. That apart, as pointed out by
the Trial Court in its judgment, the Accused has
22 Crl.Appeal No.25311/2025
clearly admitted his guilt in Ex.P.10 and as well as in
Ex.D.10 and along with Ex.P.10 only he has issued
Ex.P.1 in favour of the Complainant.
25. Admittedly, the Ex.D.10 is the original
Affidavit which is said to be given to the
Complainant, wherein it is clearly admitted by the
Accused himself that during his tenure as an
incharge Manager of the Complainant Branch some
golden ornaments have been pledged are worth of
Rs.6,00,000/- and in order to release the ornaments
and Cheques this affidavit is given, in this connection
any dispute arose, he himself is liable etc. So, by
reading the contents of this document coupled with
the contents of Ex.P.10 it is clear that the Accused
impliedly admitted his guilt and also impliedly
admitted the misappropriation of money of
Complainant. That apart, in Ex.D.10 he has clearly
admitted that he has issued Ex.P.10 for discharge of
the said amount. Therefore, this Court is of the
opinion that that whatever contentions which are
taken by the Accused and what are the documents
produced by him are not proper and genuine
documents. On the other hand, only to escape from
23 Crl.Appeal No.25311/2025
liability to pay the Cheque amount he has taken such
contention and produced those documents.
26. As discussed above, the Accused has not at
all denied about issuance of Cheque in favour of the
Complainant and also not at all denied his signature
found on the Cheque. As aforesaid, Ex.P.1 Cheque
has been issued for payment of jewelry loan that
was borrowed by him in the name of fictitious
persons by pledging golden ornaments. The Cheque
has been dishonoured on the ground of “Funds
Insufficient”. After dishonor of the Cheque the
Complainant has rightly issued legal notice to the
Accused calling upon him to repay the Cheque
amount. Instead of paying the Cheque amount he
has issued untenable reply and taken up so many
contentions, but in order to prove the contents of
reply notice he has not placed any reliable materials.
As aforesaid, though he has produced Ex.D.1 to
Ex.D.10, but prima-facie those documents have been
created for the purpose of this case. Even though he
contended that he has given Ex.D.10 to the
Complainant, after clearing the due amount,
interestingly original Affidavit itself produced before
24 Crl.Appeal No.25311/2025
the Court. So, producing the Affidavit and copy of
this affidavit to the Complainant by clearing the dues
to the Complainant is concerned, no materials have
been placed. That apart, Ex.D.2 to Ex.D.9 are prima-
facie fabricated documents as contended by the
Complainant, because the signatures on Ex.D.2 to
Ex.D.9 are all together different from the signature of
then Manager appearing on Ex.P.13 to Ex.P.16 which
has been clearly admitted by the Accused in his
cross-examination. Even there is no materials has
been elicited from the mouth of PW.1 about the
defense taken by the Accused in this case. When the
Accused failed to rebut the case of the Complainant
by placing sufficient materials, the contention of the
Complainant that the Cheque in question has been
issued by the Accused for legally payable debt is
proper and correct.
27. In view of the discussions made above and
also on careful perusal of the oral and documentary
evidence placed by both parties and as well as
admission given by DW.1 in his cross-examination
and facts and circumstances of this case it is clear
that the Trial Court after properly appreciating the
25 Crl.Appeal No.25311/2025
oral and documentary evidence placed by both
parties by applying the principles of the decisions of
the Hon’ble Apex Court has properly convicted the
Accused for the offence punishable under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore,
there is no reason to interfere with the judgment
passed by the Trial Court.
28. In so far as quantum of fine imposed by the
trial court is concerned, the Trial Court has imposed
total fine of Rs.7,00,000/- as against the Cheque
amount of Rs.5,11,500/-, keeping in view the year of
transaction, duration of litigation, cost of litigation
and interest on the outstanding amount etc. Since the
transaction between the parties was of the year
2018 and the above case was disposed of by the
Trial Court on 16.1.2025 and keeping in view of the
duration of litigation and cost of litigation etc., the
Trial Court has rightly awarded fine of
Rs.7,00,000/-. Hence, there is no reason to interfere
with the quantum of fine imposed by the trial court.
29. Thus, looking from any angle, the Accused
failed to establish any probable defence even on the
26 Crl.Appeal No.25311/2025
materials produced by the Complainant. Having
regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the
Accused failed to substantiate his defence by
producing cogent evidence before this court. The
Trial Court by appreciating the evidence and
documents in a proper perspective and while
referring to the rulings of Hon’ble Apex Court has
rightly convicted the Accused for the offence
punishable U/Sec.138 of NI Act. In the absence of
any perversity or capriciousness while convicting the
Accused, there is no reason to interfere with the
Judgment of the trial court. Therefore no grounds
made out by the Accused to interfere with the
Judgment of conviction passed by the trial court.
Hence, Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the
Negative.
30. Point No.3:
In view of the findings on the above points the
appeal filed by the Appellant deserves to be
dismissed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the
following:-
27 Crl.Appeal No.25311/2025
ORDER
The appeal filed by the Appellant
U/Sec.374 (3) of Cr.P.C., is hereby
dismissed with costs.
The Judgment of conviction passed
by the Learned XIV ACJM, Bengaluru,
in CC.No.59207/2022, dtd. 16.1.2025,
is hereby confirmed.
Send back the records with a copy
of this Judgment to the Trial Court.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, corrected,
signed and then pronounced by me, in the open court on this
the 20th day of May 2026.)[Sri. Sreepada N]
LXXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru. (CCH-73).
[ad_1]
Source link
