Bangalore District Court
B N Basavanand vs Ranjana N on 6 July, 2026
1
CC.No.7353/2023
KABC030122052023
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.7353/2023
COMPLAINANT : Sri. B.N. Basavanand,
S/o. B. Nataraj,
Aged about 33 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,
Residing at : 20/41,
2
C.C.No.7353/2023
2nd Cross, K.V. Layout,
Byrasadra,
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 claims to be a business man has
averred that, accused is his elder brother’s tutionmate
and also the property of accused and the complainant are
situated in the same locality, accordingly, he claims that,
the accused is well known to him past 10 years. On this
acquittance, the accused was working in software
financial company had requested him for a financial
assistance of Rs.5,70,000/- to perform her younger
sister’s marriage, considering her request and
3
C.C.No.7353/2023acquaintance with each other he claims to have lent sum
of Rs. 5,70,000/- to her in cash, on it receipt the accused
assured him to repay it within short time but finally she
allegedly issued 9 cheques ie., cheque bearing No.
245473, dt: 19.01.2023 for sum of Rs.2,50,000/-,
cheque bearing No. 245470, 245471, 245472, 000001,
000002, 000003, 000004, 000005, for sum of
Rs.40,000/- each dt:19.01.2023 drawn on Standard
Chartered Bank, Koramangala with an assurance that,
the cheques would be honored on their presentation.
3. Believing the accused the complainant claims to
have presented all the aforesaid nine cheques through his
banker ie., Overseas Bank, Jayanagar, for encashment,
but all the cheques came to be dishonored for “Funds
Insufficient”, the accused neglected to repay despite the
dishonor of all the cheques were brought into the notice
to her, accordingly, he constrained to issue demand notice
4
C.C.No.7353/2023
on 04.02.2023, the same was served to the accused, but
the accused neither repaid nor replied to his notice, hence
this complaint alleging the commission of 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
5
C.C.No.7353/2023
P.26, the accused was examined U/s.313 of Cr.P.C, she
denied the incriminating materials on record, however
she does not chosen to adduce her defence evidence but
got marked Ex.D.1 to D.10 documents by confronting to
PW.1.
6. Heard the arguments on both the sides. Learned
counsel for complainant filed his written arguments and
also relied upon the decisions reported in (2010) 11 SCC
441, (2009) 2 SCC 513, (2020) 12 SCC 724, (2019) 18
SCC 106, AIR 1953 SC 225 & (2003) 2 SCC 15, AIR 1961
SC 1236, Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Crl.
Appeal No. 11309/2025. On the other hand learned
counsel for the accused relied upon Dasharathbhai
Trikambhai Patel vs Hiesh Mahendrabhai Patel and Ors.
In Crl. Appeal No.1497/2022.
7. Perused the materials available on record. The
following point arises for my determination :
6
C.C.No.7353/2023
“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;
REASONS
9. The accused denied alleged borrowal of loan of
Rs.5,70,000/- from the complainant and issuance of as
many as 9 cheques for total amount of Rs.5,70,000/-,
towards discharge of the said alleged loan, and contended
that, she had borrowed sum of Rs.2 lakh from brother of
the complainant who is her friend namely Basavarajendra
(who is no more) she had issued all these nine cheques
Ex.P.1 to P.9 to said Rajendra as security for the said
loan, same was repaid as per Ex.D.1 to D.8 through
google pay after the death of said Basavarajendra the
complainant who is his younger brother has misused her
7
C.C.No.7353/2023
cheques held by said deceased Basavarajenddra and filed
this false case accordingly she claims to be an innocent.
10. So, considering the rival contentions it is clearly
transpires that, the accused does not disputing the
Ex.P.1 to P.9 as well as signatures found thereon is that of
her and also, the compliance of Sec.138(a) to (c), however,
she denied the very existence of the claimed debt ie.
borrowal of Rs.5,70,000/- from the complainant
therefore, it is burden on the complainant to prove the
existence of claimed debt.
11. The complainant in order to establish his claim
got himself examined as PW.1 and reiterated his
complaint averments in his examination in chief and
placed reliance on the aforesaid Ex.P.1 to P.9 cheques as
well as bank endorsement, legal notice, statement of bank
account whats app chats held in between him and the
8
C.C.No.7353/2023
accused, he has been subjected for cross-examination by
the accused, wherein she focused and questioned the
complainant about particulars of loan ie., when and where
the claimed loan was lent, when and why 09 cheques
were received for only Rs.5,70,000/- and confronted
Ex.D.1 to D.10 by suggesting that, she had paid sum of
Rs.20,000 on 15.09.2019, Rs. 25,000/- each on
03.09.2018, 11.09.2019, 17.10.2019, 03.10.2019,
20.01.2020, 27.01.2020, 28.07.2020, 23.03.2022 and
Rs.15,000/- on 28.03.2022 and suggested that, those
payment were made to this complaint towards loan
borrowed from elder brother of this complainant during
his life time and cheques in question were collected by
said deceased Basavarajendra for only Rs. 2,30,000/-, but
after the said Basavarajendra’s death the complainant
who is his younger brother has misused her cheques and
filed this false case against her.
9
C.C.No.7353/2023
12. The complainant vehemently denied all the
suggestions made by the accused. So,the very contention
of the accused unequivocally stands proved that, as held
supra all the cheques ie., Ex.P.1 to P.9 and signatures
found thereon belongs to accused, as such, though she
denied the loan transaction of Rs.5,70,000/- but in view
of her admission it is mandatory upon the court to draw
presumption infavour of the complainant that, accused
has drawn all the cheques ie., Ex.P.1 to 9 for total sum of
Rs.5,70,000/- as ruled by 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
10
C.C.No.7353/2023presumption, but the accused is entitled to rebut
the said presumption.”
13. Accordingly, initial presumption has been
drawn in favour of the complainant that, the accused has
drawn ExP.1 to P.9 cheques towards discharge of legally
enforceable debt and for consideration. However, the said
presumption is a rebuttable one. As such, the onus is on
the accused to rebut the same.
14. The accused in order to rebut the presumption
not stepped into the witness box however, the counsel for
the accused vehemently argued that, the complaint does
not contain the details of the advancement of alleged loan.
However, the complainant claims that, the loan was lent
in the year 2018. However, on 19.01.2023 Ex.P.1 to P.9
cheques were received for encashment ie., more than 3
years from the date of advancement of loan, accordingly it
is time barred, that apart the accused challenged the
11
C.C.No.7353/2023
financial capacity of the complainant but he failed to
produce his I.T.R, further accused confronted Ex.D.1 to
D.10 ie., amount repaid by her towards the loan
borrowed from deceased Basavarajendra and the Ex.P.23
ie., whats app chats not discloses that, accused agreed
the claimed liability of Rs.5,70,000/-, in addition to that,
complainant suppressed the receipt of Rs.2,35,000/-,
accordingly, as per Sec. 56 of N.I.Act, the claimed amount
is not legally enforceable one, therefore by relying upon
the decision between Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel Vs.
Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel & others, prayed to acquit the
accused.
15. On the other hand, the counsel for the
complainant argued that, the accused failed to produce
any document to show that, she had a financial
transaction with deceased Basavarajendra and also, the
said Basavarajendra held her 09 cheques during his life
12
C.C.No.7353/2023
time, in addition to that, as per Ex.D.1 to D.10 the
accused paid total sum of Rs. 2,35,000/- through account
right from 16.04.2021 towards an interest of two
different loans ie., the claimed debt as well as in the
connected case CC. No.7355/2023 filed by mother of the
complainant , therefore, the question of time barred debt
is not tenable under law, further, in Ex.P.23 page No.1
ie., on 26.12.2022 the accused sought six months time to
clear her liability despite that, in order to escape from
this liability, accused denied the claimed transaction, as
such in view of presumption U/s. 118 and 139 of N.I.act
the complainant urges to convict the accused.
16. Considering the rival contentions, I have
carefully perused the materials on record, it clearly
transpires that, the accused specifically denied the
borrowal of Rs.5,70,000/- from the complainant. However,
she confronted Ex.D.1 to D.10 ie., Statement of her bank
13
C.C.No.7353/2023
accounts which clearly manifests that, on 15.06.2019
sum of Rs.1,000/- , Rs.19,000/- on 03.9.2019 Rs.
25000/- on 11.9.20109 Rs. 25,000/-, on 17.10.2019 Rs.
25,000/- on 30.10.2019, Rs. 25,000/- on 20.01.2020 Rs.
25,000/- , on 27.01.2020 Rs. 25,000/- on 28.07.2020 Rs.
25,000/- on 23.02.2020 Rs. 25,000/- oin 28.03.2023 Rs.
15,000/-0 in totally she claims to have paid
Rs.2,35,000/- to the account of complainant herein.
Interestingly, despite these payments made by the
accused through account to the complainant she
contended that, it was paid towards the loan borrowed
from complainant’s elder brother ie., deceased
Basasvarajendra for the loan of Rs.2,00,000/- with an
interest, but as rightly pointed out by the complainant
the accused failed to produce any receipt or document to
show that, during life time of said Basavarajendra she had
financial transaction with him and issued Ex.P.1 to P.9
cheques as security only for Rs.2 lakh.
14
C.C.No.7353/2023
17. Further it is significant to note that, the accused
is having worldly knowledge and she is involved in
business ie., running petrol bunk and owning commercial
complex how could she issued 09 cheques for only Rs. 2
lakh if at all she borrowed from the said Basavarajendra
therefore, her defence that, she had issued Ex.P.1 to P.9
towards security for only Rs.2 lakh from deceased
Basavarajendra cannot be acceptable. Further, the
defence of the accused does not inspires the confidence of
this court because she has not taken any steps to take
back the cheques from the family of the deceased
Basavarajendra even after she came to know the death of
said Basavarajendra.
18. Further, so far as Ex.D.1 to D.10 is concerned ,
the accused though she denied the alleged borrowal of Rs.
5,70,000/- from the complainant but why she paid sum
of Rs.2,35,000/- from 16.04.2021 to 03.01.2022 to the
15
C.C.No.7353/2023
account of complainant herein is not explained properly,
but the accused suggested during the course of cross
examination of PW.1 that she paid sum of
Rs.2,35,000/- because of the complainant has forced and
harassed her for to pay sum of Rs.2 lakh loan borrowed
from deceased Basavarajedra, but as held supra she does
not stepped into the witness box and it is not always
required to prove the defence but to prove her suggestion
atleast probable evidence must have been brought out on
record ie., what steps she has taken against this
complainant, when he forced her to pay the loan borrowed
from the said Basavarajedra.
19. Even the said defence of the accused is
inconsistent or contrary to her own defence that, she
claims to have repaid sum of Rs.2Lakh during the life
time of said deceased Basavarajendra, when such being
the case, her defence is inconsistent to each other,
16
C.C.No.7353/2023
accordingly, it cannot be acceptable, when the
complainant specifically stated he received Rs.2,35,000/-
from the accused through account as per Ex.D.1 to D.10
towards two different loans borrowed by the accused from
him as well as from his mother who is admittedly
complainant in connected case CC.No.7355/2023.
20. Further, the accused counsel argued that, the
complainant failed to produce I.T.R despite he claims to
be income tax assessee as such, the claim of the
complainant cannot be acceptable so far as transaction is
concerned, as the accused specifically challenged his
financial capacity, in view of failure to produce his I.T.R.
the existence of claimed debt cannot be believable
accordingly, prays to acquit the accused, but on careful
perusal of entire cross examination of PW.1, the accused
never disputed or challenged the financial capacity of
17
C.C.No.7353/2023
PW.1, as such when there is no challenge to that effect,
question of financial incapability does not arise.
21. So far as time barred debt is concerned, the
counsel for the accused vehemently argued that, even if
the case of the complainant is taken into consideration,
as per the complainant he advanced sum of
Rs.5,70,000/- in cash in the year 2018, the cheques in
question were presented for encashment on 19.01.2023,
therefore, claimed debt is time barred as the cheques
were issued after lapse of three years from the date of
borrowal of the loan. On the contrary, the counsel for the
complainant by relying upon Ex.P.23 ie., whats app chats
held in between the parties, particularly, the chats
dt:26.08.2022 ie, the accused by admitting her liability
sought six months time to pay the claimed amount
which is nothing but an acknowledgment of debt as such
the claimed debt is not a time barred one, in addition to
18
C.C.No.7353/2023
that, as per Ex.D.1 to D.10 the accused paid interest to
his account periodically right from 16.04.2021 to
03.01.2023 as such, from the date of last payment ie.,
03.01.2022 the limitation is 3 years from the date of
03.01.2022 since it is re-occurrence of cause of action ,
accordingly, he claims that, it is not time barred debt.
22. On this rival claim I have meticulously examined
Ex.D.1 to D.10 , Ex.P.23 and materials on record. First of
all, the accused though admitted the receipt of legal notice
not set up her defence in her reply. So she failed to give
reply, further, though she claimed she had borrowed Rs.2
lakhs from deceased Basavarajendra and it was repaid to
said Basavarajendra during his life time I e. in the year
2018 itself but failed to produce any receipt to that effect.
In absence of that, as held supra, her defence with regard
to issuance of cheque Ex.P.1 to P.9 as well as borrowal of
19
C.C.No.7353/2023
Rs.2 lakh from the said deceased Basavarajeandra cannot
be believable.
23. That apart, the accused confronted Ex.D.1 to
D.10 claiming to be paid sum of Rs. 2,35,000/-
periodically ie., right from 16.04.2021 to 03.01.2022 to
the account of complainant but denied the alleged
borrowal of loan of Rs. 5,70,000/- from the complainant
but contended she paid it towards discharge of her loan
liability borrowed from deceased Basavarajendra.
However, as held supra, she failed to produce cogent
evidence to that effect, in absence of that, the version of
the complainant ie., receipt of Rs. 2,35,000/- periodically
from accused towards an interest for the loans borrowed
by the accused from this complainant as well as the
complainant who is none other than the mother of the
complainant herein in connected case CC.No. 7355/2023
has to be accepted.
20
C.C.No.7353/2023
24. Further, the complainant produced Ex.P.23
along with certificate U/s 65(B) of Indian Evidence Act
though the accused cross examined the PW.1 on this
aspect, but does not disputed the conversation/chats held
in between her and the complainant, requirement to rely
upon the Ex.P.23 ie., printouts of Whats app chat,
accused not raised any objection and the complainant
filed certificate/affidavit U/s.65(B) of Indian Evidence Act
ie., as ruled by Hon’ble Supreme court in Arjun Panditrao
Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and ors,, by
narrating the chats/communication held in between him
and the accused through whats app ie., electronic record
has to be relied, as such, on careful perusal of Ex.P.23, it
clearly discloses that, accused periodically paid some
amount and also admitted her liability and sought some
more time to pay the complainant as well as the mother of
the complainant. When such being the evidence on record
the claim of time barred debt as contended by the accused
21
C.C.No.7353/2023
cannot be acceptable as the periodical payment made by
her saves the limitation as per Art. 17 & 18 of Limitation
Act from the date of each payment made by her, therefore,
the claim of the complainant is well within time and
accordingly, I do not find legal force in the argument of
the learned counsel for the accused.
25. In addition to that, the learned Counsel for the
accused by relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex
court Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel Vs. Hitesh
Mahendrabhai Patel & others, argued that, as per Sec. 56
of N.I.Act the complainant despite claims the receipt of
Rs.2,35,000/- from the accused as per Ex. D.1 to D.10
same is not endorsed neither in legal notice nor in the
complaint, therefore the complainant has not approached
this court with clean hands or suppressed the material
facts, accordingly as per Sec.56, the payment of
Rs.2,35,000/- made by the accused through accounts as
22
C.C.No.7353/2023
per Ex.D.1 to D.10 has concealed , accordingly, the claim
of the complainant ie., Rs.5,70,000/- is not a legally
recoverable debt.
26. On the contrary, the counsel for the complainant
argued that, it was an interest amount towards the
claimed loan as well as the loan borrowed by the accused
on 14.05.2018 form the mother of the complainant who is
admittedly the complainant in connected case In CC. No.
7355/2023, therefore, it is not a concealment and also the
said contention of the accused cannot be considered
because it is not the case of the accused that, she
admitted the loan and partially repaid to the complainant.
Accordingly he argued that, the said contention is not
tenable under law.
27. On this rival claim the material clearly transpires
that, admittedly CC.No.7355/2023 another cheque
bounce case which is pending on the file of this court filed
23
C.C.No.7353/2023
by the mother of the complainant for sum of
Rs.12,50,000/- the claim in the instant case is sum of
Rs.5,70,000/- though the complainant not stated the
receipt of this amount from the accused but he contended
that, those payments received towards both the loans and
the accused admitted the liability of both the loans in
Ex.P.23. Further it is not the case of the accused that,
she admitted the liability and paid partially towards
discharge of liability from the date of drawing the cheque
and presented for encashment, therefore, Sec. 56 does not
come to her aid, when she denied alleged borrrowal
claimed loan.
28. The learned counsel for the accused vehemently
argued by referring to 09 cheques issued only for
Rs.5,70,000/- therefore it is highly improbable and same
is clearly manifest that, the complainant has misused the
cheques soon after the death of his brother
24
C.C.No.7353/2023
Basavarajendra and conveniently filled up and
presented all the 09 cheques as per his whims and
fancies. However, on the other hand, the complainant
specifically stated upon the question of the accused
during the course of his cross examination
” ನಿಮ್ಮ ಪ್ರಕಾರವೇ ಆರೋಪಿಯುು ರುಾ. 5,70,000/- ಸಾಲ
ಪಡೆದಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಹಾಗೂ ಅದನ್ನು ತೀರಿಸುವ ಹೊಣೆಗಾರಿಕೆ
ಇರುತ್ತದೆ ಈ ರೀತಿ ಇರುವಾಗ ರೂ 5,70,000/- ಗಳಿಗೆ ಒಂದು
ಚೆಕ್ಕು ಪಡೆಯಬಹುದಾಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ ಆದರೆ ತಾವು 9 ಚೆಕ್ಕುಗಳನ್ನು
ಪಡೆದಿರುತ್ತೀರಿ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯು ಆರೋಪಿ ತಮ್ಮ ಪಾವತಿ
ಅನುಕೂಲಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದು ನುಡಿಯುತ್ತ್ರಾರೆ “.
29. The complainant has claimed that, all these
cheques were issued by the accused for her convenience,
it is the accused has to explain why she issued multiple
cheques for Rs.5,70,000/- but she not chosen to stepped
into the witness box and also not replied to the notice of
the complainant instead of explaining it, the accused
25
C.C.No.7353/2023
contended that, she issued all the cheques to one
Basavarajendra during life time said Basavarajendra but
as held supra she failed to prove these cheques were held
by the said deceased Basavarajendra in absence of that,
mere on these multiple cheques for only Rs. 5,70,000/- is
not a ground to disbelieve the debt claimed by the
complainant, as it is not hard and fast rule that only one
cheque could be taken or received, in absence of an
explanation from the accused and proof of the custody of
all these 09 cheques by deceased Basasvarajendra during
his life time.
30. So considering the entire materials on record,
though the accused denied the borrow of Rs.5,70,000/-
from the complainant but confronted Ex.D.1 to D.10 that,
she has paid total Rs.2,35,000/- to the account of
complainant, however she contended that, it was towards
the loan borrowed from Basavarajendra ie., brother of
this complainant who died prior to filing of this
26
C.C.No.7353/2023
complaint, due to force and pressure of this complainant
she paid Rs.2,35,000/- directly to the account of
complainant, but as held supra neither she proved the
borrowal of Rs. 2 lakhs from deceased Basavarajendra nor
the custody of these 09 cheques by the said deceased
Basavarajednra during his life time, as such, she
categorically failed to prove her contention that she paid
towards the loan transaction held between her and
deceased Basavarajendra, therefore, the complainant has
successfully proved that, the accused has paid
Rs.2,35,000/- towards the claimed loan transaction as
well as the loan borrowed by the accused from his mother
who is admittedly complainant in connected CC. No.
7355/2023 as an interest. Further, she has not replied to
the notice of complainant despite receipt of it and failed
to establish her contention at the inception of this case.
27
C.C.No.7353/2023
31. That apart in contrary to her own contention,
she claimed that, whatever the amount she paid to the
complainant through account that has been suppressed
as such as per Sec. 56 of N.I.Act the claimed amount is
not legally enforceable but it is not her case that, she
paid Rs.2,35,000/- towards claimed amount and said
payment made by her has been disclosed in her reply but
as held supra she has not replied to the notice of the
complainant and not admitted the borrowal of this alleged
loan, in absence of that, Sec. 56 of of N.I.Act does not
comes to her aid, as such the decision relied by the
accused ie., Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel Vs. Hitesh
Mahendrabhai Patel & others, is not applicable to her
defence, as such she failed to brought out any materials
on record to rebut the presumption drawn infavour of the
complainant u/s. 118 & 139 of N.I.Act, therefore, the
complainant has established issuance of Ex.P.1 to P.9
cheques in his favour by the accused for claimed sum of
28
C.C.No.7353/2023
Rs. 5,70,000/- as well as service of demand notice, same
is not replied by the accused and also, to strengthen his
case of existence of the claimed liability , he produced
Ex.P.9 & 10 which corroborates the accused made
payment towards an interest for the claimed
loan,accordingly on failure to pay the cheques amount,
the accused is found guilty of o/p/u/s.138 of N.I.Act.
32. 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,
though the accused denied the borrowal of sum of
Rs.5,70,000/- from the complainant but as per Ex.D.1 to
D.10 her own document confronted to the complainant
speaks that, she paid sum of Rs.2,35,000/- to the
complainant account, though the complainant does not
29
C.C.No.7353/2023
claim an interest on the claimed amount but during the
course of cross examination stated that, he received from
the accused towards the loan borrowed by the accused
from him as well as from his mother, therefore,
considering the nature of transaction and the duration of
pendency if fine of Rs.6,75,000/- is imposed that would
meet the ends of justice, hence, the complainant is
entitled for sum of Rs.6,70,000/-, 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”.
33. Point No.2: In view of above finding to Point
No.1, I proceed to pass following;
ORDER
Acting U/s.278(2) of BNSS -2023
(Old Correspondence No. 255(2) of Code of
30
C.C.No.7353/2023
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.6,75,000/-, (Rupees Six Lakhs and Seventy
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.6,70,000/-, (Rupees Six Lakhs and Seventy
Thousand only) .
The bail bond and surety bond of the
accused shall stand cancelled.
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.
31
C.C.No.7353/2023
ANNEXURE
1. Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:
PW.1 : Sri. B.N. Basavanand
2. Documents marked on behalf of complainant:
Ex.P.1 to P.9 : Original cheques
Ex.P.1(a) to 9(a) : Signatures of the accused
Ex.P.10 to 18 : Bank return memos
Ex.P.19 : O/c of the legal notice
Ex.P.20 : Postal receipt
Ex.P.21 : Postal acknowledgment
Ex.P.22 : Bank Challans ( 9 Nos.)
Ex.P.23 : Whats App Chat Conversation
Ex.P.23(a) : Certificate U/s. 65(b) of Indian
Evidence Act
Ex.P24 : Pendrive
Ex.P25 & 26 : Bank Statements
3. Witnesses examined on behalf of Accused:
– Nil-
4. Documents marked on behalf of Accused:
Ex.D.1 to D.10 : Bank Statements
(M.VIJAY),
XXII ACJM, BENGALURU.
32
C.C.No.7353/2023
