Bangalore District Court
S.C.Kalpana vs Ranjana.N on 6 July, 2026
1
CC.No.7355/2023
KABC030122072023
Presented on : 21-03-2023
Registered on : 21-03-2023
Decided on : 06-07-2026
Duration : 3 years, 3 months, 16 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XXII ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
-: PRESENT :-
M.VIJAY., B.A.L, LLB.
XXII ADDL.C.J.M., BENGALURU.
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2026.
C.C.No.7355/2023
COMPLAINANT : Smt. S.C. Kalpana,
W/o. B. Nataraj,
Aged about 60 years,
Residing at : 274/12,
9th Main, 44th Cross,
Jayanagar 5th Block,
Bengaluru - 560 041.
(By Sri. Manjunatha.G., Adv)
.Vs.
ACCUSED : Smt. Ranjana.N,
D/o. Narayana R
Aged about 37 years,
2
C.C.No.7355/2023
Residing at : 20/41,
2nd Cross, K.V. Layout,
Byrasandra,
Bengaluru - 560 011.
(By Sri. Chandan, Adv.)
******
JUDGMENT
The complainant has filed this private complaint
U/s.200 of Cr.P.C., against the accused for the offence
punishable U/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
The complainant asserted that, she had a land at
Shivagange, Bangalore Rural District, but it was acquired
by the government, accordingly, she had received
compensation towards acquisition of her land, the
accused was being friend of her elder son had knew the
fact that, the complainant had compensation amount
had approached her for hand loan of Rs. 12,50,000/- for
to perform her younger sister’s marriage. Due to that
acquittance with the accused, the complainant claims to
3
C.C.No.7355/2023have lent sum of Rs.12,50,000/- ie., sum of Rs.5 lakh
through cheque bearing No.491359, dt:04.05.2018, for
sum of Rs.7,50,000/- in cash to the accused. On it
receipt, the accused assured her to repay it within short
time and on her repeated demand, the accused allegedly
issued a cheque bearing No. 245469, dt: 27.12.2022 for
sum of Rs.12,50,000/- drawn on Standard Chartered
Bank, Koramangala with an assurance that, the cheque
would be honoured on its presentation.
3. Further, the complainant averred that, she claims
to have presented the aforesaid cheque for encashment
with fond hope that, the cheque would be honored but it
came to be dishonored for Funds Insufficient, same was
brought to the notice of the accused but the accused not
repaid it, accordingly, finally she constrained to issue
demand notice on 29.12.2022 same was served to the
accused but the accused neither replied nor paid the
4
C.C.No.7355/2023
cheque amount, accordingly, she alleged that, the accused
has committed an o/p/u/s. 138 of N.I.Act.
4. As per the guidelines of Hon’ble Apex Court
issued in Indian Bank Association & others., Vs. Union of
India., case, court took cognizance of an o/p/u/s.138 of
N.I.Act, based on the complaint, the sworn statement
affidavit, the documents placed by the complainant along
with the complaint and ordered to be registered criminal
case against the accused for the o/p/u/s.138 of N.I.Act.
5. In pursuance of summons, the accused
appeared through her counsel and she was enlarged on
court bail. Substance of accusation read over to her, she
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The
complainant in order to prove his case, got examined
himself as PW.1 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to
P.14, the accused was examined U/s.313 of Cr.P.C, she
5
C.C.No.7355/2023
denied the incriminating materials on record. However,
she does not chosen to adduce her defence evidence.
6. Heard the arguments on both the sides. The
complainant advocate filed his written argument and also
relied upon the decisions reported in (2010) 11 SCC 441,
(2009) 2 SCC 513, (2020) 12 SCC 724, Judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Crl. Appeal No. 11309/2025. On
the other hand, the counsel for accused has relied upon
Sasseriyil Joseph Vs. Devassia in Crl.A. No.161/1994;
Spl Leave to Appeal Crl.No. 1785/2001.
7. Perused the materials available on record. The
following point arises for my determination :
“Whether the complainant has proved that
the accused has committed the offence
punishable under Sec.138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act?”
8. On that basis my finding on the above point is in
the “Affirmative” for the following;
6
C.C.No.7355/2023
REASONS
9. The complainant claims to have lent sum of
Rs.12,50,000/- to the accused on 4.05.2018 ie., through
cheque sum of Rs.5 lakh and in cash sum of Rs.
7,50,000/-, towards discharge of the said loan, the
accused allegedly issued cheque bearing No. 245469, dt
27.12.2022 for sum of Rs.12,50,000/- but it got bounced
despite service of demand notice, the accused failed to pay
the cheque amount. On the contrary, the accused denied
borrowal sum of Rs.12,50,000/- but admitted the receipt
of Rs.5 lakh on 04.05.2018 from complainant and cheque
Ex.P.1 belongs to her as well as signature found thereon,
however, she contended Ex.P.1 was issued for security
to the said loan but despite its repayment the
complainant without returning her cheque has misused
and filed this false case.
7
C.C.No.7355/2023
10. So, considering the rival contentions, it is crystal
clear that, the financial transaction between these parties
is not in dispute, service of demand notice ie., compliance
of Sec.138(a) to (c) of N.I.Act is also not in dispute, the
issuance of Ex.P.1 pertaining to the account of the
accused as well as signature found thereon at Ex.P.1(a) is
also that of the accused is also not in dispute. However,
the accused contended that, it was issued towards
security for the sum of Rs.5 lakh received through cheque
and denied the receipt of Rs.7,50,000/- in cash. As such,
it is burden on the complainant to prove the existence of
claimed debt.
11. In order to prove it, the complainant got herself
examined as PW.1 and relied upon the cheque
endorsements, bank statement as well as conversation
held through whatsapp with regard to transaction. The
accused as held supra denied the borrowal of sum of
8
C.C.No.7355/2023
Rs.12,50,000/- but, specifically suggested that, she
borrowed only Rs.5 lakh in the year 2018 at that time, the
Ex.P.1 issued for security and the said loan amount was
repaid in the year 2018 itself, despite of repayment, the
complainant without returning her cheque has filed this
false case by falsely claiming that, additionally, she also
borrowed Rs.7,50,000/- in cash in the year 2018. So,
the very contention of the accused is clearly stands
proved that, she had financial transaction with the
complainant, but, only for sum of Rs.5 lakh through
cheque on 04.5.2018 but not received cash of
Rs.7,50,000/-.
12. However, though, she denied the receipt of
Rs.7,50,000/- but in view of admission that Ex.P.1
cheque and signature at Ex.P.1(a) found thereon is that
of her, it is mandatory upon the court to draw
presumption infavour of the complainant U/s 118 (a) &
Sec. 139 of N.I.Act that, the accused has drawn Ex.P.1
9
C.C.No.7355/2023
cheque for sum of Rs.12.50,000/- as ruled by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in Rangappa Vs. Mohan wherein, the Apex
Court has held that;
“Once the cheque relates to the account of the
accused and he accept and admit the signature
on the said cheque, then initial presumption as
contemplated under Sec.139 of N.I.Act has to be
raised by the court in favour of the complainant.
The presumption referred to in Sec.139 of N.I.Act
is a mandatory presumption and not a general
presumption, but the accused is entitled to rebut
the said presumption.”
13. So accordingly initial presumption has drawn
in favour of the complainant however, the said
presumption is rebuttable one therefore, the onus is on
the accused to prove her contention that, she never
borrowed Rs.7,50,000/- from complainant in other words,
the debt claimed by the complainant did not exist as on
the date of presentation of the cheque. The accused in
order to discharge the onus not chosen to lead her
10
C.C.No.7355/2023
defence evidence, however, it is well settled law that, the
accused need not necessary to stepped into the witness
box always to rebut the presumption but, he/she can
rebut the presumption based on the material available on
record produced by the complainant or through cross-
examination of the complainant. Accordingly, the accused
cross examined the PW.1 wherein she questioned the
PW.1 about particulars of advancement of loan, when
and where cheque was given and also, posed several
questions with regard to source of money to advance Rs.
12,50,000/- as the complainant is claiming to be a
homemaker.
14. Before appreciating the evidence on record, it is
significant to note the arguments of both the sides, the
learned counsel for the complainant, argued that, the
accused admitted the receipt of Rs.5 lakh, as well as
issuance of cheque pertains to her infavour of the
11
C.C.No.7355/2023
complainant therefore, mandatory presumption
U/s.118(a) and 139 N.I. Act is infavour as ruled by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Rangappa vs. Mohan, Kumar
Exports Vs. Sharma Carpets, APS Forex services Pvt. Ltd.,
Vs. Shakti International Fashion Linkers. Further, she
admitted the part of the loan amount received as against
the claim of Rs.12,50,000/-, however she denied the
receipt of Rs.7,50,000/- in cash, but cash transaction is
also valid and receipt for cash transaction is not at all
necessary in view of the instrument in hand issued by the
accused as held by the Hon’ble Supreme court in
Georgekutty Chacko VS. M.N. Saji. That apart, the
complainant produced Ex.P.11 chats held in between the
accused as well as complainant’s son with regard to
repayment made by the accused by admitting her liability,
hence, it is an acknowledgment of debt as required U/s
25(3) of Contract Act, as such, the claimed debt is not
time barred one, the accused though cross examined the
12
C.C.No.7355/2023
PW.1 nothing elicited in order to prove her defence and
failed to rebut the presumption.
15. Per contra, the counsel for the accused argued
that, the complaint does not discloses the details of the
transaction, so failed to narrate when and where the
alleged loan was advanced, further the complainant
categorically admitted the transaction was held in the
year 2018 and cheque was collected in the year 2018
itself but Ex.P.1 received in the month of December 2022
after lapse of 3 years from the date of advancement of
alleged loan, therefore, it is time barred debt, accordingly
by relying upon the judgment in between Sasseriyil
Joseph Vs. Devassia., contended that, the claimed debt
is time barred. In addition to that, he also argued that,
the whatsapp chat produced by the complainant is
apparently held between the complainant’s son and the
accused, therefore, it is not between the parties as such it
13
C.C.No.7355/2023
cannot be considered. Hence, he urged to acquit the
accused as the claimed debt is not legally enforceable one
in view of time barred claim.
16. So, considering the arguments of both the sides,
I have meticulously gone through the materials on record
it clearly reveals that, accused despite receipt of demand
notice, she has not chosen to reply it and failed to
demonstrate her defence at the inception, further, as
held supra, she admitted receipt of Rs. 5 lakh through
cheque bearing No.491359 on 04.05.2018, so she partly
admitted the financial transaction, however, she denied
the receipt of Rs.7,50,000/- from the complainant on the
very same day, but, further admitted Ex.P.1 issued in the
year 2018 itself towards security and she claims to have
repaid the said Rs.5 lakh. However, she suggested the
PW1 that, the complainant had received Rs.5 lakh from
her but when and where, what was the mode of
14
C.C.No.7355/2023
repayment is not forthcoming, even the accused not
produced any receipt to that effect. In absence of that, her
contention that, she had repaid sum of Rs.5 Lakhs
received through cheque from the complainant cannot be
believable.
17. Further, the accused challenged the financial
capacity of the complainant by asking some questions
about financial sources to the complainant to advance
huge amount of Rs.12,50,000/- as being homemaker, for
that, the complainant vehemently stated though she is
homemaker, but, she had a landed property near
Dodddaballapur that was acquired by the government and
she received compensation of Rs.65 lakh out of that
amount, she advanced this loan amount as the accused is
known to her family and also, friend of her elder son, even
the said contention of the accused is contrary to her own
claim, that she received Rs.5 lakhs from the account of
15
C.C.No.7355/2023
the complainant through cheque, same is admitted by
her, but in contrary she questioned the financial capacity
to lent remaining sum of Rs.7,50,000/- in cash, so, she
cannot approbate and reprobate, even the complainant
produced statement of accounts Ex.P.7 which stands
proved that, complainant had sufficient balance in her
account as on the date of advancement ie., on 04.05.2018
was more than Rs.20 lakh therefore, the financial
capability challenged by the accused despite receipt of
part of the loan amount through account does not
tenable.
18. That apart, the counsel for the accused has
argued that, the particulars of the debt has not been
stated in the complaint nor in legal notice, however,
during the course of cross-examination of PW.1 it is
brought on record that, the complainant claimed that, she
advanced the loan amount of Rs.12,50,000/- on
16
C.C.No.7355/2023
04.05.2018 and cheque in question issued in the year
2022 ie., 27.12.2022 as such, the claimed debt is a time
barred one as the cheque in question issued after more
than 3 years from the date of receipt of the alleged loan,
hence the claimed debt is not legally enforceable debt
accordingly, prays to dismiss the complaint and acquit
the accused by referring the judgment of Sasseriyil
Joseph Vs. Devassia., and Ex.P.11 the chats held in
between the accused and the son of complainant but not
between the parties of this case, therefore, what ever the
admissions about the liability cannot be looked into and it
is not at all binding on the parties to this case, therefore
the admissions or consent through whats app or the
electronic record cannot be looked into for consideration
of voluntary consent or willful consent of a borrower of the
loan as required U/s 25(3) of Indian Contract Act.
17
C.C.No.7355/2023
19. Per contra, the counsel for the complainant
argued that, in connected case CC.No.7353/2023 pending
before this court filed by complainant’s son, wherein the
accused paid some amount towards interest for both the
loans which were borrowed independently for that, the
accused admitted both the loans are different and
undertaken to repay the loans amount to both the
complainant herein and also, the complainant ie., son of
the complainant in CC.No.7353/2023, the Ex.P.11 the
chats held through Whatsapp between the complainant
in CC.No.7353/ 2023 and the accused with respect to
both the transactions are clear admission about the
liability.
20. So, on careful consideration of the materials on
record with the above arguments it clearly reveals that,
the accused though admitted the receipt of Rs.5 lakh on
04.05.2018 through bank account by contending that,
18
C.C.No.7355/2023
she had repaid it in the year 2018, but to substantiate her
claim nothing has produced how and when she repaid
the admitted partial claimed loan of Rs.5 lakh. In
contrary, the accused contended that, the claimed debt is
time barred debt by referring the complaint averment
that, Ex.P.1 was received by the complainant in the year
2022, but in contrary to it, the accused contended that,
while borrowing Rs.5 Lakh on 04.05.2018 she had issued
Ex.P.1 cheque in favour of the complainant in the year
2018 itself, but the complainant during the course of her
cross-examination stated that,
” ವಿವಾದಿತ ಚೆಕ್ಕನ್ನು ಯಾವ ತಾರೀಖು ಹಾಗೂ ತಿಂಗಳಿನಲ್ಲಿ
ನೀಡಲಾಗುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದು ನೆನಪಿಲ್ಲ ಆದರೆ 2018 ನೇ ಸಾಲಿನಲ್ಲಿ
ನೀಡಲಾಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ”.
That apart, the accused herself suggested that,
” ಆರೋಪಿಯು ನನ್ನ ಬಳಿ ರೂ.5 ಲಕ್ಷ ಪಡೆದಾಗ ಕೇವಲ ಸಹಿ ಇದ್ದ
ಖಾಲಿ ವಿವಾದಿತ ಚೆಕ್ಕನ್ನು ಪಡೆದಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ ಹಾಗೂ ಅದನ್ನು
ಹಿಂದಿರುಗಿಸದೇ ನನ್ನ ಅನುಸಾರ ಅದನ್ನ ಭರ್ತಿ ಮಾಡಿ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕಿಗೆ
ಹಾಜರುಪಡಿಸಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ”.
19
C.C.No.7355/2023
21. So, accused herself suggested Ex.P1 was issued
in the year 2018 itself the complainant though not given
any particulars about advancement of loan but clearly
stated
” ಆರೋಪಿಯು 2018 ನೇ ಸಾಲಿನ 4 ನೇ ತಿಂಗಳಿನಂದು
ಆರೋಪಿಯು ತಮ್ಮ ಸಹೋದರಿಯ ಮದುವೆ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ ಅದಕ್ಕೆ
ಹಣ ಬೇಕೆಂದು ನನ್ನ ಬಳಿ ಕೋರಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಆದರೆ ತಾರೀಖು
ನೆನಪಿಲ್ಲ ಆರೋಪಿಯು ಸಾಲ ಮರುಪಾವತಿಸಲು 1 ವರ್ಷ
ಸಮಯ ಕೋರಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ, ಸಾಲ ಕೊಟ್ಟ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಕೇವಲ ವಿವಾದಿತ
ಚೆಕ್ಕು ಹೊರತುಪಡಿಸಿ ಬೇರೆ ಯಾವುದೆೇ ದಾಖಲೆ
ಪಡೆದುಕೊಂಡಿಲ್ಲ 2018 ರ 5ನೇ ತಿಂಗಳಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಆರೋಪಿಯು
ಸಹೋದರಿಯ ಮದುವೆ ನಿಶ್ಚಯವಾಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ ಆದರೆ ತಾರೀಖು
ನೆನಪಿಲ್ಲ”.
22. So, PW.1 as held supra despite she has not
given the specific date of advancement of loan but she has
categorically stated she lent the amount in the month of
May 2018. In support of her claim, she also produced
Ex.P.7 statement of her bank account, wherein it clearly
discloses that, on 04.05.2018 sum of Rs.5Lakh was paid
20
C.C.No.7355/2023
to the accused through cheque same is not denied by the
accused and she herself suggested on the same day the
complainant had collected her cheque as a security for
Rs.5 lakh but not Rs.12,50,000/- which clearly
corroborates the claim of the complainant that, cheque
was issued by the accused in the year 2018 itself as a
security.
23. Further, the loan was borrowed in the year 2018
the cheque was presented on 27.12.2022, therefore, as
per accused, the claim is time barred one, ie., after lapse
of 3 years from the date of receipt of loan, but the
complainant has produced Ex.P.9 & P.10 Statement of
Bank account pertains to her younger son by name
Basavananda who is admittedly younger son of
complainant and complainant in connected case
CC.No.7353/2023 contended that, she had financial
transaction with elder son of the complainant ie.
21
C.C.No.7355/2023
Basavarajendra (ಬಸವರಾಜೇಂದ್ರ) and she repaid
Rs.2,35,000/- as against the loan of Rs.2 lakh borrowed
from him but the complainant has produced Ex.P.9 &
P.10 as well as Ex.P.11 conversation or chats held in
between the accused and the younger son of the
complainant during his life time and asserted that, the
accused has paid an interest to the account to her
younger son for the loans borrowed by the accused from
both from her as well as younger son of the complainant.
24. As held supra, the accused admitted the receipt
of Rs.5 lakh through cheque from the complainant herein
and also, she contended in connected case
CC.No.7353/2023 which is filed by younger son of the
complainant that she borrowed Rs.2 lakh and as against
the said loan she has repaid sum of Rs. 2,35,000/- as
per Ex.D.1 to D.9, But Ex.D.1 to D.9 reflects payment
made to complainant’s younger son but not to deceased
22
C.C.No.7355/2023
Basavarajendra during his life time. If at all she had
financial transaction with said Basavarajendra why she
paid to complainant in connected case CC.No.7353/2023
after his death and no piece of evidence is produced and
brought on record to substantiate her contention that,
she had financial transaction with deceased
Basavarajendra. So it clearly stands proved that, as per
her version she had two different financial transactions
with the complainant as well as elder son of the
complainant Sri. Basavarajendra, when such being the
case, in Ex.P.9 & P.10 there is clear entries about
payment made by the accused on 28.08.2020 sum of
Rs.30,000/- in Ex.P.9, on 20.04.2021 sum of
Rs.20,000/-, on 16.04.2021 sum of Rs.15,000/-, on
20.12.2021 sum of Rs. 20,000/-, on 03.01.2022 sum of
Rs.15,000/- was paid to the account of complainant’s
younger son Basavananda who is complainant in
connected case CC.No.7353/2023.
23
C.C.No.7355/2023
25. Despite that, the accused contended that, it is
not relevant to this case as it is different transaction but
to prove the payment made by the accused towards an
interest for the claim of this complaint she relied upon
Ex.P.11 ie., chats or conversation held between deceased
Basavananda who is admittedly the younger son of the
complainant and the accused, despite it is got marked by
the complainant along with required certificate Us.63(4) of
BSA, the accused does not cross examined the PW.1
about admissibility of this whatsapp chats and also not
denied the identity of the persons who had involved in
the chats, in absence of that, court can easily relied upon
Ex.P.11 as it meets the requirement U/s.63(4) of BSA.
26. The accused though contended that, the chats
held between the complainant younger son who is
admittedly the complainant in connected case in CC No.
7353/2023 not between the parties of this case. But, as
24
C.C.No.7355/2023
held supra, said complainant who is none other than
younger son of the complainant and both the families
are well known to each other, therefore, the conversation
held in between them cannot easily brushed away, as
such, I have carefully gone through the Ex.P.11 on
18.10.2021 the accused sent a message to complainant
younger son and referred the name of the complainant
and also undertaken to pay the amount to her through
complaint in connected case in CC.No.7535/2023, like
this, the conversation held in between them which
corroborates the accused by admitting her liability has
paid an interest to the account of complainant younger
son as per Ex.P.9 & P.10.
27. Therefore those payments ie., on 28.08.2020
sum of Rs.1,000/- and on the same day, sum of
Rs.29,000/-, in addition to that as per Ex.P.10 on
20.04.2021 sum of Rs.20,000/-, on 16.04.2021 sum of
25
C.C.No.7355/2023
Rs.15,000/-, on 20.12.2021 sum of Rs.20,000/-, on
03.01.2022 sum of Rs.15,000/- the accused paid to the
account of complainant younger son which clearly stand
proved that, the accused used to pay an interest not
only to the complainant as well as complainant younger
son who is admittedly complainant in connected case for
two different financial transactions, therefore, the said
payment from that day even if the dates taken for
limitation ie., 04.05.2018 and date of presentation ie., on
27.12.2022 the payments made by the accused as per
Ex.P.9 & 10, saves the limitation as per Art.17 & 18 of
Limitation Act, since both the dates becomes insignificant
in view of payments made by the accused. As such the
claim of the complainant is well within time. Therefore,
the contention of the accused that, the claimed debt is
time barred one cannot be acceptable.
28. Further, it is significant to note that, accused
not stepped into the witness box, infact accused not
26
C.C.No.7355/2023
always required to stepped into the witness box, but, in
order to prove her contention that, she paid the amount
referred in Ex.P.7 to P.10 towards loan borrowed from the
complainant’s elder son ie., Basavarajendra (who is no
more), has to be established with cogent and probable
evidence, but she failed to elicit any thing from PW.1
during course of cross-examination that, she had
financial transaction with deceased Basavarajendra in
absence of that, absolutely nothing is on record to believe
her defence, hence the accused failed to rebut the
presumption drawn in favour of the complainant and also,
the claimed debt did not exist as well as it is a time
barred one, on her failure to prove the same the
complainant has successfully proved her claim that,
accused have borrowed Rs.12,50,000/- from her and
towards discharge of the said loan. the accused has
drawn Ex.P.1 cheque in her favour.
27
C.C.No.7355/2023
29. So considering the entire materials on record,
despite the admission of receipt of Rs.5 lakhs by the
accused through cheque from the complainant on
04.05.2018, she denied the receipt of Rs.7,50,000/- in
cash and contended she has repaid sum of Rs. 5 Lakh to
the complainant in the year 2018 itself and Ex.P.1 was
issued towards security despite of its repayment,
complainant did not return her cheque and misused it,
but, to prove her contention as held supra, she failed to
produce receipt about when and where what was the
mode of repayment of Rs.5 lakh made by her in the year
2018 itself not forthcoming, in absence of that, her claim
of repayment cannot be acceptable. That apart, she
denied the receipt of Rs.7,50,000/- in cash but admitted
the receipt of Rs.5 lakh through cheque as well as
issuance of Ex.P.1 cheque, as held supra as per Sec.118
and 139 of N.I.Act once the accused admitted the
issuance of cheque court has to be presumed the cheque
28
C.C.No.7355/2023
was drawn by accused towards discharge of legally
enforceable debt, as the complainant successfully proved
her financial capability to advance the said amount of
Rs.7,50,000/- in cash.
30. That apart the counsel for the accused argued
that, the claimed debt is a time barred one but in view of
Ex.P.7 to P.9 the accused used to pay interest to the
complainant as well as complainant’s younger son who is
admittedly the complainant in connected no.
CC.7353/2023, in view of such payments made by the
accused the limitation from such payment automatically
extends or saves the limitation from the date of such
repayment till presentation of cheque on 27.12.2022,
therefore, the Ex.P.1 presented well within time of
limitation and claimed debt is not at all a time barred one,
as such the accused nothing has produced to probabalize
her defence either repayment of sum of Rs.5 lakh or the
29
C.C.No.7355/2023
claimed debt is time barred one. In absence of that, the
accused failed to rebut the presumption drawn in favour
of the complainant U/s.118 & 139 of N.I.Act and also,
the accused failed to state her contention by issuing
reply despite service of demand notice, as such, the
complainant has proved the ingredients of Sec. 138 of
N.I.Act in view of non payment of cheque amount despite
the legal notice was duly served on her, accordingly the
accused is found guilty of o/p/u/s. 138 of N.I.Act.
31. So, far as sentence and compensation is concern,
an o/p/u/s.138 of N.I.Act, is a civil wrong and
compensatory in nature, punitive is secondary,
considering, the above settled principal of law with facts
and circumstances of the case, which clearly reveals that,
accused despite admission of receipt of Rs.5 lakh through
cheque denied the receipt of Rs.7,50,000/- in cash,
though she claims to be repaid sum of Rs.5 lakh in the
30
C.C.No.7355/2023
year 2018 itself nothing has produced on record, however
the complainant during course of her evidence claimed
that, she received interest from the accused on the
claimed amount, however the complainant does not claim
interest in this case, therefore considering the nature of
transaction and duration of pendency, it is just and
necessary if the fine of Rs.13,55,000/- is imposed that
would meet the ends of justice, hence, the complainant is
entitled for sum of Rs.13,50,000/-, as a compensation as
per Sec.357(1) of Cr.P.C., remaining amount of
Rs.5,000/-, is to be appropriated to the state, in case of
default, the accused shall under go simple imprisonment
for a period of 6 months. Accordingly, I answered the
above point in “Affirmative”.
32. Point No.2: In view of above finding to Point
No.1, I proceed to pass following:
31
C.C.No.7355/2023
ORDER
Acting U/s.278(2) of BNSS -2023
(Old Correspondence No. 255(2) of Code of
Criminal Procedure), the accused is convicted for
an o/p/u/s.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
The accused is sentenced to pay a fine of
Rs.13,55,000/-, (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs and
Fifty Five Thousand only) in default, the
accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of six months.
Out of the fine amount received, Rs.5,000/-,
(Rupees Five Thousand only) is to be
appropriated to the State and by way of
compensation as per the provision U/s. 396 of
BNSS – 2023 (Old Correspondence No.357(1)(b)
of Cr.P.C), the complainant is entitled for
Rs.13,50,000/-, (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs and
Fifty Thousand only).
The bail bond and surety bond of the
accused shall stand cancelled.
32
C.C.No.7355/2023
Office is directed to furnish a free copy of the
judgment to the accused.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected, signed
and then pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 6th day of July, 2026)(M.VIJAY),
XXII ACJM, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE
1. Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:
PW.1 : Sri. S.C.Kalpana
2. Documents marked on behalf of complainant:
Ex.P.1 : Original cheque
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of the accused
Ex.P.2 : Bank return memo
Ex.P.3 : O/c of the legal notice
Ex.P.4 : Postal receipt
Ex.P.5 : Postal acknowledgment
Ex.P.6 : Bank Challan
Ex.P.7 to 10 : Statements of accounts
Ex.P 7(a) & 8(a) : Relevant entries
Ex.P.11 : Screenshot of whatsapp chat
Ex.P12 : Photo
33
C.C.No.7355/2023
Ex.P13 : Pendrive
Ex.P14 : Certificate U/s. 65 B of Evidence Act.
3. Witnesses examined on behalf of Accused:
– Nil-
4. Documents marked on behalf of Accused:
– Nil-
(M.VIJAY),
XXII ACJM, BENGALURU.
34
C.C.No.7355/2023
