Bangalore District Court
Sarojamma vs Venkatesh on 6 July, 2026
SCCH-6 1 CC No.10521/2021
KABC020305772021
IN THE COURT OF ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY.
(SCCH-6)
Present: Smt. Chetana S.F.
B.A., L.L.B.,
IV Addl., Small Cause Judge & ACJM,
Court of Small Causes,
Bengaluru.
CC. No.10521/2021
DATED THIS THE 06th DAY OF JULY, 2026
COMPLAINANT/S Smt. Sarojamma
W/o. Aswathanarayana,
Aged about 50 years,
R/at No.828, 6th Main,
2nd Stage, West of Chord Road,
Rajajinagar,
Bengaluru-560 010
(By Sri. A Somaraju- Advocate)
-Vs-
ACCUSED Sri. Venkatesh
S/o Sri. Shingraiah
Aged about 47 years,
R/at Dudda Hobli,
Holalu, Mandya Taluk
Mandya District.
(By Sri. Veeresh M, Advocate)
SCCH-6 2 CC No.10521/2021
-: J U D G M E N T :-
This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/Sec.138 of
the N.I.Act R/w. Sec.200 of Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable
under Secs.138 of the N.I. Act as against the accused praying to
punish the accused for the said offence.
2. The case of the complainant is that, the complainant
and accused are well known to each other from several years.
Due to said acquaintance, accused has approached the
complainant for hand loan of Rs.2,00,000/- on 05.01.2019 for
the purpose of legal necessities and to discharge the debts.
Considering the request of accused, complainant has paid
Rs.2,00,000/- by way of cash to the accused on 16.01.2019 and
the accused agreed to repay the same within one year. Towards
discharge of the said loan amount, the accused has issued a
cheque bearing No.940282 dated 17.02.2020 for a sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on Karnataka Bank Ltd., M.C Road
Mandya Branch, Mandya, in favor of complainant.
SCCH-6 3 CC No.10521/2021
3. The complainant presented the said cheque through
her banker Canara Bank, Rajajinagar Branch, Bangalore and
same has been returned through her bank with endorsement
that "Funds Insufficient" on 14.05.2020. Hence, the
complainant issued legal notice dated:02.06.2020 to the accused
through RPAD and the same has been duly served on him on
04.06.2020. Inspite of service of notice, the accused has not paid
the cheque amount and hence, he has committed an offence
punishable U/Sec. 138 of N.I. Act. Hence, this complaint.
4. After issuance of legal notice accused failed to repay
the said loan nor replied to the notice. The accused has not paid
the cheque amount and has committed an offence punishable
U/Sec. 138 of N.I. Act. Hence, this complaint.
5. After recording the sworn statement of the
complainant by way of affidavit and also verifying the
documents, cognizance was taken against the accused for the
offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I. Act. The accused
appeared before this Court through his counsel and enlarged on
bail and his plea was recorded. The accused pleaded not guilty
SCCH-6 4 CC No.10521/2021
and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for evidence
of the complainant.
6. The complainant got examined herself as PW.1 and
got marked 5 documents as Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.5 and her daughter
examined as PW.2 and got marked Ex.P6 to Ex.P9. Thereafter,
the case was posted for recording the statement of accused
under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. In the statement U/s. 313 Cr.P.C., the
accused has denied all the incriminating evidence appearing
against him. On the other hand, the accused himself examined
as DW-1 and got marked two documents as Ex.D1 and to Ex.D2
on his behalf.
7. The learned counsel for accused has relied on the
following citations:
1.
(2019) 5 SCC 418 between
Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa
2. Cril. RP No.36/2022 of Karnataka High
Court between K V Vijay Kumar vs. V.
Madaiah
3. (2006) 6 SCC 39 between M.S.
Narayana Menon Alias Mani v. State of
Kerala and another
4. (1999) 3 SCC 35 between Bharat Barrel
& Drum Manufacturing Company v. Amin
Chand Pyarelal
SCCH-6 5 CC No.10521/2021
5. (2007) 5 SCC 264 between Kamala S v.
Vidyadharan M.J and another
6. (2008) 4 SCC 54 between Krishna
Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya Hegde
7. (2019) 10 SCC 287 between Uttam Ram
v. Devinder Singh Hudan and another
8. ABC 2014 (I) 167 SC between AC
Narayanan v. State of Maharashtra and
Anr
9. Crl. P. 3979/2018 between Damodar
Naidu v. Subramani.
8. Heard the arguments of both side and Perused the
records.
9. The following points arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the complainant proves that the
cheque bearing No.940282 dated
17.02.2020 for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-
drawn on Karnataka Bank Ltd., M.C Road
Mandya Branch, Mandya, issued by the
accused has been dishonored on the
ground of “Funds Insufficient” on
14.05.2020 and even after receiving the
intimation regarding the dishonor of
cheque failed to pay the cheque amount
within the stipulated period and thereby
the accused has committed an offence
punishable under Sec.138 of N.I. Act?
2. What order?
SCCH-6 6 CC No.10521/2021
10. My findings on the above points are as under
Point No.1: In the Affirmative
Point No.2: As per final order for the
following:
-: R E A S O N S :-
11. POINT NO.1:- In view of the present legal position as
held by our Hon’ble High Court as well as Apex Court of India
in a catena of decisions as well as relevant provisions of the
Act, this court has to see whether the complainant has
complied all the requirements as contained in Sec.138 of NI
Act so as to bring home the guilt of the accused for the
alleged offence. If so, whether the accused is able to rebut
the legal presumption available to the complainant under
Sec.139 of the Act by adducing probable defense or not.
However, it is held by the full bench of our Apex Court in
the case of Rangappa Vs. Mohan reported in 2010 (1) DCR
706 that;
“The Statutory presumption mandated by
sec.139 of the Act, does indeed include the
existence of a legally enforceable debt or lia-
bility. However, the presumption U/S 139 of
the Act is in the nature of a rebuttable pre-
SCCH-6 7 CC No.10521/2021
sumption and it is open for the accused to
raise a defence wherein the existence of a
legally enforceable debt or liability can be
contested”.
12. Therefore, in view of the above decision, once the cheque
is admitted, the statutory presumption would automatically fall
in favour of the complainant the complainant that, the alleged
cheque was issued for discharge of an existing legally enforceable
debt or liability against the accused and the burden will shift on
to the accused to rebut the same.
INGREDIENTS OF OFFENCE AND DISCUSSION:-
13. Before dwelling into the facts of the present case, it
would be apposite to discuss the legal standards required to be
met by both sides. In order to establish the offence under Section
138 of NI Act, the prosecution must fulfill all the essential
ingredients of the offence. Perusal of the bare provision reveals
the following necessary ingredients of the offence:-
First Ingredient: The cheques were
drawn by a person on an account
maintained by him for payment of
money and the same is presented for
payment within a period of 3 months
from the date on which it is drawn or
within the period of its validity;
SCCH-6 8 CC No.10521/2021
Second Ingredient: The cheques were
drawn by the drawer for discharge of
any legally enforceable debt or other
liability;
Third Ingredient: The cheques were
returned unpaid by the bank due to
either insufficiency of funds in the
account to honour the cheque or that
it exceeds the amount arranged to be
paid from that account on an
agreement made with that bank;
Fourth Ingredient: A demand of the
said amount has been made by the
payee or holder in due course of the
cheque by a notice in writing given to
the drawer within thirty days of the
receipt of information of the dishonour
of cheque from the bank;
Fifth Ingredient: The drawer fails to
make payment of the said amount of
money within fifteen days from the
date of receipt of notice.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE-
14. The accused can only be held guilty of the offence under
Section 138 NI Act if the above-mentioned ingredients are proved
by the complainant co-extensively. Additionally, the conditions
stipulated under Section 142 NI Act have to be fulfilled. Notably,
there is no dispute at bar about the proof of only first, third, and
SCCH-6 9 CC No.10521/2021fifth ingredient. The complainant had proved the original cheque
vide Ex.P.1 which the accused person had not disputed as being
drawn on the account of the accused. It was not disputed that
the cheque in question was presented within its validity period.
The cheque in question was returned unpaid vide return memos
vide Ex.P.2 due to the reason, “Funds Insufficient” on
14.05.2020. The complainant had proved the service of legal
demand notice dated 02.06.2020 vide Ex.P.3. Postal receipt vide
Ex.P4. Postal acknowledgment vide Ex.P5. General Power of
Attorney vide Ex.P6. Partition deed vide Ex.P7. Patta book vide
Ex.P8. Original copy of Ration card vide Ex.P9. Thus, there is a
dispute only with regard to the second ingredient to the offence.
As such, the 1st,3rd,4th& 5th ingredient of the offence under
section 138 of the N.I. Act stands proved.
15. As far as the proof of second ingredient is concerned,
the complainant has to prove that the cheque in question was
drawn by the drawer for discharging a legally enforceable debtor
any liability. In the present case, the issuance of the cheque in
question is not denied. As per the scheme of the N.I. Act, once
SCCH-6 10 CC No.10521/2021
the accused admits signature on the cheque in question, certain
presumption are drawn, which result in shifting of onus. Section
118(a) of the NI Act lays down the presumption that every
negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration.
Another presumption is enumerated in Section 139 of N.I. Act.
The provision lays down the presumption that the holder of the
cheque received it for the discharge, in whole or part, of any debt
or other liability.
16. The combined effect of these two provisions is a
presumption that the cheque is drawn for consideration and
given by the accused for the discharge of debt or other liability.
Both the sections use the expression “shall”, which makes it
imperative for the court to raise the presumptions once the
foundational facts required for the same are proved. Reliance is
placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hiten
P. Dalal vs. Bratindranath Banerjee (2001) 6 SCC 16.
17. Further, it has been held by a three-judge bench of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rangappa vs. Sri Mohan
(2010) 11 SCC 441 that the presumption contemplated under
SCCH-6 11 CC No.10521/2021
Section 139 of NI Act includes the presumption of existence of a
legally enforceable debt. Once the presumption is raised, it is for
the accused to rebut the same by establishing a probable
defence.
18. The presumptions raised under Section 118(b) and
Section 139 NI Act are rebuttable presumptions. A reverse onus
is cast on the accused, who has to establish a probable defence
on the standard of preponderance of probabilities to prove that
either there was no legally enforceable debt or other liability. In
this case, the arguments raised by the Ld. counsel for the
accused to rebut the presumption are discussed below:
First defence: PW.2: no knowledge about facts
of case.
19. The accused has taken the specific defence that PW.2
who is the GPA Holder of the complainant has no knowledge
about facts of the present case and her evidence cannot be
considered and believed and accepted. In this regard, learned
counsel for accused cross examined PW.2 wherein PW.2 stated
that accused knew to her mother since 7-8 years and she knew
SCCH-6 12 CC No.10521/2021
that Lakshmi H.S is sister of the accused and accused was
introduced by his sister Lakshmi. Further with regard to specific
question that whether PW.2 knew about the facts of the present
case from the complainant, PW.2 clearly stated that in her
presence only, the present transaction has been taken place. It
was argued by the learned counsel for accused that the fact that
transaction has been taken place in the presence of PW.2 is not
mentioned in the affidavit evidence of the PW.2. Though PW.2
admitted about that fact, but, in the GPA it is clearly mentioned
that GPA holder well conversant and having transaction
knowledge about the present transaction. Thus PW.2 has clearly
stated that she is having personal knowledge and she was
present at the time of transaction and in her presence the
present transaction has been taken place. Even PW.2 clearly
answered to the questions put to her in her cross-examination
with regard to the transaction. PW.2 stated that accused is of
Mandya District and also PW.2 in her cross examination stated
that accused and his sister and her husband along with their
son has came to their house for borrowing of the loan in the year
2019. It is pertinent to note that this fact deposed by the PW.2 is
SCCH-6 13 CC No.10521/2021
not at all denied by the accused counsel. Further PW.2 clearly
stated that in January 2019, the accused along with his sister
and son came to their house for borrowing the loan and she did
not remember the specific date. Thus from on whole perusal of
the evidence and the cross examination of the PW.2, it is clear
that PW.2 was having the personal knowledge about the facts of
the present case. Even PW.2 stated that in her presence, the
present transaction has been taken place. It is pertinent to note
that this fact deposed by the PW.2 has not at all been denied by
the learned counsel for the accused atleast by putting a single
denial suggestion. Hence the defence taken by the accused that
PW.2 has no knowledge about the facts of the present case
cannot be accepted and believed.
Second defence: No transaction at all
20. Further accused has taken the specific defence that, the
complainant is totally stranger to her and he has never had any
financial transaction with the complainant at any point of time.
He has given his cheque in question, Patta book and Partition
deed to his sister and brother-in-law and his son Rahul as she
SCCH-6 14 CC No.10521/2021
has asked for the same of giving the same as a security to some
other person and he has never borrowed any loan from the
complainant and has never issued cheque in question for
repayment of any loan. Thereafter those documents and cheque
were misused by the complainant and filed a false case against
him.
21. It was argued by the learned counsel for accused that
even the complainant has filed a false complaint against his
sister Lakshmi through a friend of her husband by name
Lakshman in CC No.18002/2021 which was pending. In support
of his contention accused has produced the complaint,
deposition and documents produced in CC No.18802/2021 as
per Ex.D2. Though as per Ex.D2 one Lakshman has filed a
complaint against Lakshmi H.S for the offence punishable under
Sec.138 of NI Act. But, PW.2 denied the said defence. Even
denied that there was any financial transaction between the said
Lakhshmi and the complainant. Even PW.2 denied that she or
her mother has never had any financial transaction with the said
Lakshmi and even pleaded her ignorance about the filing of the
SCCH-6 15 CC No.10521/2021
cheque bounce case by the Lakshman against the Lakshmi.
Though PW.2 admitted that said Lakshman is the friend of their
father and he is the witness to the GPA but PW.2 pleaded her
ignorance with regard to transaction and filing of the cheque
bounce case by Lakshman against said Lakshmi. Hence mere
filing of the cheque bounce case by one Lakshman against
Lakshmi sister of the accused would not prove that there was no
transaction between the complainant and accused or else there
was no transaction between complainant and Lakshmi. Hence
Ex.D2 cannot be considered.
22. If for the sake of the argument, if at all the defence of
the accused is believed to be a gospel truth, then the genuine
question would arises in the minds of the court that when
accused has given his cheque in the year 2019 itself, then why
till filing of this case, accused has not taken any action or
steps against the complainant for return of his cheque or
misuse of the cheque or atleast not given the stop payment
notice to his bank for which, accused clearly admitted that he
has not taken any steps and even accused has stated any
SCCH-6 16 CC No.10521/2021
reason why he has not taken any steps against complainant
for recovery of his document or cheque. The very conduct of
the accused in not taking the steps against the complainant
for not returning the cheque and misuse of the cheque makes
the defence of the accused highly suspicious and doubtful.
23. Further accused has taken the contention that the
son of her sister by name Rahul has paid Rs.63,000/- through
Phone-pay to the account of the PW.1 for which, PW.2 pleaded
her ignorance with regard to the said fact. But, DW.1 himself
in his cross-examination admitted that the said Rahul has
sent Rs.63,000/- to the PW.1 with respect of the amount
borrowed by the said Lakshmi. Thus it is clear that the
transfer of said amount by Rahul to the PW.1 is not related to
the present case.
24. Even DW.1 in his cross-examination pleaded his
ignorance that his sister Lakshmi has borrowed the loan from
Lakshman. The accused has not clear about whether there
was any financial transaction between Lakshman and
Lakshmi. As per the accused, if the Lakshman has filed a case
SCCH-6 17 CC No.10521/2021
against Lakshmi, accused would have answered that there
was no financial transaction between Lakshman and Lakshmi.
The pleading of ignorance by the DW.1 with regard to the fact
that there was any financial transaction between the
Lakshman and Lakshmi clearly leads to draw an inference
that there was a transaction between Lakshman and Lakshmi
and Lakshman might have filed a cheque bounce case against
Lakshmi.
25. Apart from this, if at all the defence of the accused is
believed to be a gospel truth, then question arises in the
minds of the court as to why even after service of the notice,
accused has not taken the said defence at the earliest possible
opportunity by giving reply to the notice issued by the PW-1.
No explanation were forthcoming in this regard. In the absence
of any such recourse being adopted by the accused, it is highly
impossible to believe his defence. The Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Rangappa Vs. Mohan Reported in 2010 (1) DCR
706, wherein it was held as follows:
SCCH-6 18 CC No.10521/2021
24. “-Very fact that the accused had
failed to reply to the statutory
notice under Sec.138 of N.I.Act
leads to inference that there was
merit in the complainant’s version”.
26. In the present case also the accused inspite of the
service of the notice has not replied to the notice and taken
the defence at the later stage only for the sake of the defence.
That, being the true facts it can be held that, the accused has
failed to establish his defence.
Third defence: Financial Capacity:
27. Further learned counsel for accused cross examined
PW.2 with regard to occupation and income of the PW.1 for
which, PW.2 stated that her father is working as Junior
Engineer at BESCOM and getting salary about Rs.1,00,000/-
and his mother was not having any independent income. But
his father used to give 50-60 thousand per month to her
mother PW.1 and her sister used to give Rs.30,000/- p.m. to
her mother PW.1. Out of that amount, her mother has given
the said amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as loan to the accused. It is
pertinent to note here that nowhere the accused counsel
SCCH-6 19 CC No.10521/2021
denied the occupation and income of the father of the PW.2
and also the fact deposed by the PW.2 that her father used to
give 50-60 thousand per month to her mother and her sister
used to give Rs.30,000/- p.m. to her mother at least by
putting a single denial suggestion.
28. The learned counsel for accused went on cross
examining PW.2 whether the PW.2 has produced bank
statement of his father or her sister to show that her father
was getting salary about Rs.1,00,000/- and her sister used to
get the salary. When the fact of the income of the father of the
PW.2 and sister of PW.2 has not at all been denied and
disputed by the accused counsel, there is no necessity for the
PW.2 to produce any document to prove their income. Except
the above said cross examination, nowhere the accused
counsel denied the lending of the loan of Rs.2,00,000/- by the
PW.1 to the accused and also the financial capacity of the
PW.1 to lend the loan of Rs.2,00,000/- at least by putting a
single denial suggestion. Hence complainant no need to prove
her financial capacity.
SCCH-6 20 CC No.10521/2021
29. Apart from this, it is pertinent to note here that if as
per the defence of the accused, her sister has given the
partition deed and Patta book of the accused to the PW.1, then
what prevented the sister of the accused from taking any legal
action or giving the notice demanding for return of the said
document and the cheque from the complainant. There is no
explanation forthcoming from the mouth of the accused in this
regard. The very silence of the accused in this regard creates
doubt about the defence of the accused.
30. In view of above said discussion, the defence taken by
the accused appears to be more improbable. On the other
hand, complainant has established passing of the
consideration and issuance of the cheque and the signature of
accused in the cheque. and dishonor of cheque and liability of
the accused to pay the cheque amount.
Conclusion:
31. In view of all the above discussions, it can be concluded
that the complainant has established through cogent and
SCCH-6 21 CC No.10521/2021
convincing evidence the fact of issuance of the cheque for
discharge of legality enforceable debt, which is dishonored for
want of sufficient funds, Issuance of legal notice within
stipulated time, failure on the part of accused to repay the
amount within stipulated period. On the other hand, the accused
has failed to rebut the presumption available to the complainant
through probable evidences that would preponderate upon the
evidence lead by the complainant. Therefore, the accused is held
to have committed an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of N.I.
Act. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.
32. POINT No.2:- In view of my answer to point No.1,
I proceed to pass the following:-
-: O R D E R :-
Acting U/Sec.278(2) of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, accused
is hereby convicted for the offence
punishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act.
Accused is sentenced to pay a fine of
Rs.2,05,000/- for the offence punishable
under section 138 of N.I.Act. The amount
SCCH-6 22 CC No.10521/2021of Rs.2,00,000/- shall be paid to the
complainant by way of compensation in
accordance with Sec.395(1) of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023, within one month from today.
The remaining amount of Rs.5,000/-
shall be confiscated to the state. In default
of payment of fine, the accused shall
undergo simple imprisonment for a period
of six months.
It is made clear that in view of Sec.461 of
BNSS, even if the accused shall undergo
the default sentence imposed above,
accused is not absolved of liability to pay
the fine amount.
The bail and surety bond of the accused
and surety shall stand canceled.
Office to furnish the copy of this
judgment for free of cost to the accused.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by her. After her
typing, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court this the 06th
day of July, 2026).
(CHETANA S.F.)
IV Addl., Small Cause Judge & ACJM,
Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.
SCCH-6 23 CC No.10521/2021
ANNEXURE
List of witnesses examined for the Complainant:
PW.1 :- Smt. Sarojamma PW.2 :- Ms. Anju A.,
List of witnesses examined for the accused:-
DW-1:- Sri Venkatesh
List of documents marked for the Complainant:-
Ex.P.1 : Cheque
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of accused
Ex.P.2 : Bank Endorsement
Ex.P.3 : Office copy of Legal Notice dated
02.06.2020
Ex.P.4 : Postal receipt
Ex.P.5 : Postal acknowledgment
Ex.P.6 : General Power of Attorney
Ex.P.7 : Partition deed
Ex.P.8 : Patta book
Ex.P.9 : Original copy of Ration card
List of documents marked for the accused:-
Ex.D1 : SBI Bank Account statement
Ex.D2 : Complaint, affidavit and documents in
CC No.18802/2021
(CHETANA S.F.)
IV Addl., Small Cause Judge & ACJM,
Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.
