Bangalore District Court
Geetha M vs K Harish on 22 May, 2026
KABC0A0017832025
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 22nd day of May 2026
Crl. Appeal. No.25195/2025
Appellant/ Smt. Geetha.M,
Accused:- S/o Sri. Sai Prasad,
Aged about 47 years,
R/at No.14, 13th Main,
4th Cross, Kodihalli,
Bengaluru-560 008.
(By Sri. M.D. Paramesha - Adv.,)
V/s
Respondent/ Sri. K. Harish,
Complainant: S/o Late Sri. A. Krishnappa,
Aged about 40 years,
R/at "Benaka Nilaya",
No.42/1, Rama Temple Street,
HAL II Stage, Doopanahalli,
Bengaluru-560 008.
(By Sri. Shivappa S. Jatti - Adv.,)
2 Crl.Appeal No.25195/2025
JUDGMENT
This appeal is by the Accused before the trial
court, who suffered the judgment of conviction for the
offence punishable U/Sec.138 of NI Act passed by
XXXIII ACMM, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.51106/2021,
dtd.1.6.2024, 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 Accused is known person to the
Complainant and she approached the Complainant
for hand loan of Rs.5,00,000/- on February 2020 to
meet her family necessities. Accordingly, the
Complainant advanced the same and the Accused
assured that she would repay the same within 08
months. Even after lapse of 08 months the Accused
did not returned the amount and when the
3 Crl.Appeal No.25195/2025Complainant approached the Accused to pay the said
amount, ultimately issued two Cheques for
Rs.4,00,000/- & Rs.1,00,000/- dtd: 24.12.2020.
When the Complainant presented the said Cheques
for encashment, they came to be dishonoured on the
ground of “Payment Stopped by the Drawer”.
Therefore, the Complainant issued legal notice to the
Accused calling upon her to pay the Cheque amount.
Inspite of service of notice the Accused failed and
neglected to pay the Cheques amount 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
known to her. The Accused pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried. The Proprietor of the
Complainant got examined himself as PW.1 and got
marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 documents and closed his
4 Crl.Appeal No.25195/2025
side. The Accused has not led any evidence and also
not marked any documents to prove her defense.
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.
1.6.2024.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment of
conviction, the Accused is in appeal on the following
grounds:
1. The judgment and order passed by the
Trial Court is unsustainable in the eye of
law and also the Learned Magistrate
was not properly looked into the facts of
the case and the same may be set
aside.
2. The Respondent was not having financial
capacity to lend money to the Appellant.
3. The Trial Court has not given opportunity
to the Appellant to lead her defense
evidence.
4. There is no financial transaction between
the Appellant and the Respondent.
5 Crl.Appeal No.25195/2025
5. Under the above grounds the Appellant
sought for acquittal by allowing the appeal.
7. Heard both sides.
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 cheques in question
were 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.
Point No.2 : In the Negative.
Point No.3 : As per final order for
the following :
6 Crl.Appeal No.25195/2025
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
cheque was for the discharge of any
debt or other liability.
7 Crl.Appeal No.25195/2025
(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:-
“Existence of legally recoverable
debt or liability- The presumption
mandated by Section 139 of the Act
8 Crl.Appeal No.25195/2025does 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 discharge an unduly high standard
or proof. In the absence of compelling
9 Crl.Appeal No.25195/2025justifications, 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 Accused is
known person to the Complainant and she
approached the Complainant for hand loan of
Rs.5,00,000/- on February 2020 to meet her family
necessities. Accordingly, the Complainant advanced
the same and the Accused assured that she would
repay the same within 08 months. Even after lapse
10 Crl.Appeal No.25195/2025
of 08 months the Accused did not returned the
amount and when the Complainant approached the
Accused to pay the said amount, ultimately issued
two Cheques for Rs.4,00,000/- & Rs.1,00,000/- dtd:
24.12.2020. When the Complainant presented the
said Cheques for encashment, they came to be
dishonoured on the ground of “Payment Stopped by
the Drawer”. Therefore, the Complainant issued legal
notice to the Accused calling upon her to pay the
Cheque amount. Inspite of service of notice the
Accused failed and neglected to pay the Cheques
amount. Therefore, the Complainant constrained to
file complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act.
16. The Complainant in order to prove the
averments of complaint got examined himself as
PW.1 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7
and closed his side. On the other hand, the Accused
has not led any evidence to prove her defense nor
marked any documents.
17. Let me go through the documentary
evidence produced by the Complainant before the
11 Crl.Appeal No.25195/2025
Trial Court. Ex.P.1 & Ex.P.2 are the Cheques issued
by the Accused dtd: 24.12.2020. Ex.P.3 & Ex.P.4 are
the Cheques return memos dtd: 28.12.2020. Ex.P.5
is the Office copy of Legal Notice dtd: 11.1.2021.
Ex.P.6 is the RPAD Receipt. Ex.P.7 is the Postal
Acknowledgment. The present complaint has been
filed before the Trial Court on 4.2.2021. 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 the present
complaint is filed well within the period of limitation
and it is in accordance with the provisions of
Negotiable Instruments Act.
18. It is an admitted fact that the Accused has
not at all led any oral and documentary evidence
before the Trial Court, even she has not replied the
notice of the Complainant, therefore, the defense of
the Accused can be gathered from the cross-
examination made to PW.1. During the course of
cross-examination the Accused has disputed the
financial capacity of the Complainant to pay the said
12 Crl.Appeal No.25195/2025
huge amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the Accused. Even
the Accused contended that the Accused is not
known to the Complainant. Interestingly the Accused
counsel has not fully cross-examined PW.1. further it
appears from the order sheet that when the case has
been set down for further cross of PW.1, the Accused
and his counsel were remained absent, therefore, the
Trial Court has taken further cross of PW.1 as nil.
19. It is the argument of the Learned Counsel
for the Appellant herein is that the Trial Court has
not given sufficient opportunity to the Accused to
further cross-examine PW.1 and to lead defence
evidence on his behalf. The Trial Court has wrongly
rejected the prayer of counsel for the Accused, as
there is no grounds and posted for arguments on
main, without giving opportunity to the Appellant to
lead defense evidence. Even though, the Trial Court
had earlier allowed the application under Section
311 of Cr.P.C., for further cross of PW.1, but later
rejected the prayer of the counsel for the Appellant
and abruptly posted the case for arguments on main
matter without giving opportunity to the Appellant.
13 Crl.Appeal No.25195/2025
The Appellant has good case on merits to get the
Accused is acquitted. The absence of the Accused
was not deliberate and due to some women related
ailments she could not appeared before the Trial
Court. Therefore, he prayed to set aside the judgment
of the Trial Court or remand the matter to the Trial
Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law.
20. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent
during the course of arguments submitted that even
though the Trial Court has granted sufficient
opportunity for further cross-examination of PW.1,
the Accused has not at all utilized the said
opportunities. Even though the Accused had an
opportunity to lead her defense evidence, but
purposefully not led any evidence. Therefore, the
Trial Court has rightly taken the further cross of
PW.1 as nil and defense evidence as nil. The order
sheet itself speaks that the Trial Court has offered
sufficient opportunity to the Accused to put forth her
defense. Even the Trial Court after properly
appreciating the oral and documentary evidence has
rightly convicted the Accused, therefore, there is no
14 Crl.Appeal No.25195/2025
need to interfere with the judgment of the Trial Court.
Accordingly, he prayed to confirm the judgment of the
Trial Court.
21. Let me go through the judgment of the Trial
Court with the evidence available on record. The
Complainant has produced Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7, which
discloses that the Accused had issued Ex.P.1 &
Ex.P.2 in favour of the Complainant for a sum of
Rs.4,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- respectively. Even
the said Cheques have been dishonoured on the
ground of ‘payment stopped by the drawer’. Further
Ex.P.7 notice has been duly served upon the Accused
as per Ex.P.7 postal acknowledgment. Admittedly,
the Accused has not at all replied to the said notice
nor made payment, therefore, the Complainant has
rightly filed the complaint. As aforesaid, the Accused
has not led any oral evidence nor fully cross-
examined PW.1. Though the Accused in part of the
cross-examination disputed the financial capacity of
the Complainant to advance the loan, but on careful
perusal of cross of PW.1 it is clear that he is an
electrician and his monthly salary is Rs.21,000/-
15 Crl.Appeal No.25195/2025
and his father was retired employee and his mother
is drawing pending and she has saved the amount
out of the death benefits of his father and as well as
from the rental income etc. So, the Complainant has
made out grounds that he has sufficient capacity to
advance the said loan amount.
22. It is interesting to note here that even
though the Accused has not led any oral evidence,
but at the time of recording of 313 of Cr.P.C.,
statement clearly admitted that she had borrowed
Rs.2,00,000/- from the Complainant and paid
interest at 3% per month till March 2020.
Interestingly, she has not stated that whether she
has cleared the said loan amount or not. As
aforesaid, she has not replied to the said legal notice
issued by the Complainant. Further in the part of the
cross-examination also the Accused has not at all
denied about issuance of Cheques and the signature
found on the Cheques. Therefore, as opined by the
Trial Court in its judgment, the Accused has accepted
and admitted the issuance of Cheques and as well
as her signatures found on the Cheques. Therefore,
16 Crl.Appeal No.25195/2025
the Complainant has discharged his initial burden
which casted upon him. No doubt, the Accused can
rebut the said presumption by placing oral and
documentary evidence. As aforesaid, even though the
Accused had given an opportunity to fully cross-
examine PW.1 and to adduce evidence, but she did
not utilize the said opportunities. Even in support of
the contention taken in the 313 Statement also the
Accused has not placed any materials. Therefore, the
Trial Court has rightly come to conclusion that the
Accused has failed to rebut the presumption
available in favour of the Complainant.
23. Regarding the contention taken by the
Appellant in the appeal memo that she has not been
given proper opportunity to cross-examine PW.1, to
lead defense evidence and submit arguments on the
main matter is concerned, as aforesaid, the Trial
Court has given sufficient opportunities as per the
order sheet of the Trial Court. The Accused instead of
utilizing the said opportunities, now falsely
contending that no such opportunities were given to
her to put forth her defense. Further no documentary
17 Crl.Appeal No.25195/2025
evidence placed by the Accused to show that why
she should not fully cross-examine PW.1, lead
defense evidence and submit arguments. If really the
Accused has sufficient defense, definitely she should
have led her defense evidence by placing materials,
when the Trial Court had given opportunities. Even
the contention of the Appellant that she was
suffering from women related ailments etc., is
concerned also no materials forthcoming from the
side of the Appellant. Therefore, this Court is of the
opinion that the Trial Court has rightly appreciated
the materials available on record and passed the
judgment. Hence, this Court cannot say that the
judgment passed by the Trial Court is bad under law
and not sustainable in law as contended by the
Appellant herein.
24. In view of the above discussions and also
facts and circumstances of this case, it is clear that
the Accused has failed to show that the Cheques in
question have not been issued for any legally
payable debt. On the other hand, the Complainant
has established his case by placing sufficient
materials that the Accused had availed loan of
18 Crl.Appeal No.25195/2025
Rs.5,00,000/- and for discharge of the said hand
loan amount only the Accused had issued Ex.P.1 &
Ex.P.2 and made them to dishonour and committed
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.
25. In so far as quantum of fine imposed by the
trial court is concerned, the Trial Court has imposed
total fine of Rs.6,75,000/- as against the Cheques
amount of Rs.4,00,000/-, 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
2020 and the above case was disposed of by the
Trial Court on 1.6.2024 and keeping in view of the
duration of litigation and cost of litigation etc., the
Trial Court has rightly awarded fine of
Rs.6,75,000/-. Hence, there is no reason to interfere
with the quantum of fine imposed by the trial court.
26. Thus, looking from any angle, the Accused
failed to establish any probable defence even on the
19 Crl.Appeal No.25195/2025
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.
27. 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:-
20 Crl.Appeal No.25195/2025
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 XXXIII ACMM,
Bengaluru, in C.C.No.51106/2021,
dtd.1.6.2024, 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 22nd day of May 2026.)[Sri. Sreepada N]
LXXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru. (CCH-73).
