Bangalore District Court
Badrappa vs S H Beeraiah on 9 July, 2026
KABC010141222025
IN THE COURT OF THE LX ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-61)
:Present :
Sri
Mallikarjuna Swamy H.S.,
B.Sc., LL.B.,
LX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 9th day of July, 2026
CRL.A No.886/2025
APPELLANT : Badrappa,
S/o late Rachachari,
Aged about 45 years,
r/at No.4 and 5,
Amma Archid, Ground Floor,
1st Cross, Supraja Nagara
Chunchagatta Main Road,
Bengaluru - 560 062.
(By: Sri. S.S.V., Advocate)
Vs.
RESPONDENT Sri S.H. Beeraiah,
S/o late Hotte Nanjegowda,
aged about 47 years,
r/at No.159/1, Tayappa
Lolappa Garden,
Basavaraju Layout,
Jaraganahalli, Sarakki,
Bengaluru - 560 078.
(By : Sri. U.R., Advocate)
2 Crl.A.No.886/2025
JUDGMENT
The appellant/accused has preferred this
appeal under Section 374(3) of Cr.P.C. / 415(3)
of BNSS, 2023 being aggrieved by the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed in
C.C.No.1272/2021 dated 07.05.2025 on the file of
XII Addl.Small Causes Judge and ACJM, Bengaluru.
2. For the purpose of convenience parties
are referred to as per their rank before the
trial court. Appellant was arraigned as accused
and respondent was the complainant before the
trial court. Complainant set the law into
motion by lodging private complaint under
section 200 of Cr.P.C., for the offence
punishable u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act
against accused.
3. The gist of the accusation in the
complaint is that, complainant and accused are
known to each other. Complainant is a civil
contractor and also working as Foreman in
Adarsha Developers. Accused approached
complainant for financial assistance of
Rs.6,00,000/- in the mid month of July 2020.
complainant arranged the amount from his
friends and relatives and paid amount of
Rs.6,00,000/- by way of cash on various dates
3 Crl.A.No.886/2025
between 15.08.2020 to 20.10.2020. On demand
for repayment, accused cheque bearing No.553739
for Rs.6,00,000/- dated 04.11.2020 drawn on
Canara Bank, Konanakunte Branch, Bengaluru in
favour of the complainant. The complainant
presented the said cheque for encashment through
his banker Canara Bank, Sarakki Branch,
Bengaluru and the same was dishonoured for the
reason “Funds insufficient” vide Endorsement
dated 07.11.2020. Thereafter, the complainant
issued legal notice dated 24.11.2020 to the
accused by calling upon him to pay the amount
covered under the cheque within the stipulated
period. The said notice was served to the
accused on 25.11.2020. In spite of service of
notice, accused failed to repay the amount
covered under cheque, however issued untenable
reply. Hence, complainant constrained to set the
law into motion.
4. On the basis of the said complaint, the
learned ACJM took cognizance of the offence
punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act and issued process against the
accused. In response to the summons issued, the
accused appeared before the court and he was
enlarged on bail. The plea of the accused was
recorded by explaining the substance of
4 Crl.A.No.886/2025
accusation leveled against accused, for which
the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried.
5. The complainant adduced evidence as PW.1
and examined PW.2 to PW.4 and got marked
Exs.P.1 to P.16 and closed his side. Thereafter
the statement of the accused was recorded u/s
313 of Cr.P.C., wherein accused has denied the
incriminating evidence adduced against him as
false. Accused adduced evidence as DW.1 and got
marked Ex.D.2 in support of his defence.
Exs.P.17 to P.20 are marked through
confrontation of DW.1. Ex.D.1 is marked through
confrontation of PW.1.
6. After hearing the arguments of both
sides, the trial court convicted accused for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to pay
fine of Rs.6,10,000/- with default sentence of
one year simple imprisonment. Further the trial
court acting u/s Section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C.
ordered that out of fine amount, Rs.6,00,000/-
to be paid to the complainant as compensation
and remaining fine of Rs.10,000/- shall be
defrayed to the state.
5 Crl.A.No.886/2025
7. Accused being aggrieved by the said
judgment preferred this appeal on the following
grounds;
(i) The private complaint filed by
respondent before the trial court are all false.
The learned magistrate had not given opportunity
to the appellant to prove his case.
(ii) The trial court be pleased to taken the
cognizance against the appellant. The
appellant has not examined, the appellant
wants to establish his defence in the trial
court.
(iii) The impugned judgment passed by
the learned magistrate is totally perverse,
illegal, unlawful and bad in law.
(iv) The learned magistrate after conclusion
of trial has proceeded and passed judgment
against the appellant by invoking the power conferred under
Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is found guilty
for the offence punishable under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act of Negotiable
Instruments Act.
(v) Without perusing of cross-examination
of PW.1 and written arguments of the accused the
6 Crl.A.No.886/2025
trial court has blindly passed one side
judgment.
(vi) The learned magistrate erred in placing
much reliance upon the chief examination of PW.1
when their evidence is totally unbelievable,
unacceptable and throws great doubt upon their
credibility and reasonability, though the
evidence of DW.1 has partially taken, but the
learned magistrate has not given sufficient
opportunity to the appellant to prove his case.
(vii) The complainant had not examined
any independent witness to corroborate the claim
of the complainant, which material facts not at
all considered by the learned magistrate while
passing the above said impugned judgment.
(viii) The accused has settled entire
amount to the respondent / complainant, the copy
of receipts are herewith produce for the kind
perusal of this court, there is no due to the
complainant.
(ix) under Section 56 of Negotiable
Instruments Act has to be arised in the above
said case, which was transaction between the
complainant / respondent and the accused /
7 Crl.A.No.886/2025
appellant. The trial court has not passed the
judgment upon the said provision.
(x) The learned magistrate has committed a
grave error in not exercising his judicial mind
in appreciating the defence documents of the
accused. Hence prayed to allow the appeal and to
set aside the impugned judgment of conviction
and sentence dated 07.05.2025 and to acquit the
appellant.
8. After admission of the appeal, court
has issued notice to the respondent. The
respondent has appeared before the court
through his advocate. The trial court records
have been secured.
9. Heard both sides. In view of the
contentions raised by the parties to the lis
before the trial court and the evidence
available on record following points would arise
for my consideration:
1) Whether complainant proves that
issuance of cheque by the
accused is towards legally
enforceable debt?
2) Whether accused rebutted the
presumption available to the
complainant under Section 139
of Negotiable Instruments Act?
8 Crl.A.No.886/2025
3) Whether the judgment of
conviction and sentence passed
in C.C. No.1272/2021 dated
07.05.2025 rendered by the XII
Addl. Judge, Court of Small
Causes and ACJM, Bengaluru
calls for interference by this
court?
4) What order?
10. My answer to the above points are as
under:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative;
Point No.2: In the Negative;
Point No.3: Partly in the Affirmative;
Point No.4: As per final order,
for the following:
REASONS
11. Point Nos.1 and 2:- It is the case of
the complainant that, complainant and accused
are known to each other. Complainant is a
civil contractor and also working as Foreman in
Adarsha Developers. Accused approached
complainant for financial assistance of
Rs.6,00,000/- in the mid month of July 2020.
complainant arranged the amount from his
friends and relatives and paid amount of
Rs.6,00,000/- by way of cash on various dates
between 15.08.2020 to 20.10.2020. On demand
9 Crl.A.No.886/2025
for repayment, accused cheque bearing No.553739
for Rs.6,00,000/- dated 04.11.2020 drawn on
Canara Bank, Konanakunte Branch, Bengaluru in
favour of the complainant. The complainant
presented the said cheque for encashment through
his banker Canara Bank, Sarakki Branch,
Bengaluru and the same was dishonoured for the
reason “Funds insufficient” vide Endorsement
dated 07.11.2020. Thereafter, the complainant
issued legal notice dated 24.11.2020 to the
accused by calling upon him to pay the amount
covered under the cheque within the stipulated
period. The said notice was served to the
accused on 25.11.2020. In spite of service of
notice, accused failed to repay the amount
covered under cheque, however issued untenable
reply.
12. The said averment has been reiterated
by the complainant in his evidence. PW.2 to
PW.4 are examined by the complainant to
substantiate his case. Ex.P.1 is the cheque
Exs.P.2 and P.3 are pay-in-slips, Ex.P.4 is the
Bank Endorsement, Ex.P.5 is the office copy of
the Legal Notice, Exs.P.6 and P.7 are the
returned postal envelops, Ex.P.8 to P.10 are
postal receipts, Ex.P.11 is the reply issued by
accused, Ex.P.12 is the complaint lodged by the
10 Crl.A.No.886/2025
complainant, Ex.P.13 is the postal
acknowledgment, Ex.P.14 is the account statement
of complainant maintained in Canara Bank,
Ex.P.15 is the account statement of complainant
maintained in Kotak Mahindra Bank, Ex.P.16 is
the Bank account statement of Yathish M.,
maintained in State Bank of India, Exs.P.17 to
P.19 are photographs and Ex.P.20 is the Election
Voter Identity card of the accused.
13. Before adverting to contentious issues
this court examined whether complainant complied
Section 138(a) to (c) of Negotiable Instruments
Act. As such this court examined matters to be
established by the complainant for availing
statutory presumptions. Section 138 (a) to (c)
provides that cheque has to be presented within
a period of three months from the date on which
it is drawn or within the period of its validity
whichever is earlier and notice has to be issued
making the demand for payment within 30 days of
receipt of information by him from the bank
regarding dishonour of cheque and if drawer of
the cheque fails to make payment within 15 days
from the receipt of the said notice, the
complainant can set the law into motion. As
such this court proceed to examine whether
complainant complied mandatory provisions of
11 Crl.A.No.886/2025
Section 138(a) to (c) before instituting the
complaint before the leaned Magistrate.
14. Ex.P.1 cheque was drawn on 04.11.2020.
Cheque was presented for encashment and the said
cheque was returned with an endorsement “Funds
Insufficient” as per Ex.P.4 dated 07.11.2020.
Legal notice Ex.P.5 was issued through
registered post on 23.11.2020 and served to the
accused.
15. The cheque/Ex.P.1 was presented within
three months. Notice was issued within
prescribed period and the complaint was filed
within 45 days after receipt of legal notice by
the accused. As such complainant complied
Section 138(a) to (c) of Negotiable Instruments
Act.
16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its
decision reported in (2009) 2 SCC 513 – Kumar
Exports v/s Sharma Carpets and another decision
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR
2019 SC 1983 – Basalingappa v/s Mudibasappa
held that presumption under Section 118 and 139
of N.I.Act are rebuttable presumptions. It is
further held that rebuttal does not require
proof beyond reasonable doubt. Something
probable has to be brought on record. The
12 Crl.A.No.886/2025
Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly held that a
probable defence needs to be raised which must
meet the standard of ‘preponderance of
probability’, and not mere possibility.
17. The defence of the accused is that,
accused had financial transaction with one
Ningegowda. Complainant being stranger to the
accused misused the cheque secured by
Ningegowda as a security from the accused and
filed this false case for unlawful gain at the
behest of Ningegowda. Accused reiterated the
same in his evidence. In his cross-examination
accused admitted contents of the photographs
marked at Exs.P.17 to P.19 in which accused and
complainant were present and deposed that, he
knows complainant through Ningegowda. Ex.P.17
is the old photograph taken during college days
of the accused and complainant. As such the
contention of the accused that, complainant is
a stranger is factually untenable.
18. Accused in his reply contended that, he
had issued three cheques to Ningegowda and one
of the cheque is misused by the complainant.
Accused in his evidence deposed that, he handed
over four blank cheques to Ningegowda. Further,
13 Crl.A.No.886/2025
accused has not mentioned details of the cheques
handed over to Ningegowda in the reply. Nothing
relevant has been elicited in the cross-
examination of the complainant to disbelieve
the transaction. PW.2 to PW.4 are examined by
the complainant to prove how he arranged money.
As such, accused failed to probabalize his
defence.
19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its
decision reported in (2019) 10 SCC 287 – Uttam
Ram Vs. Devinder Singh Hudan & another, held
that, once cheque is proved to be issued, it
carries statutory presumption of consideration.
Then onus is on person issuing the cheque to
disprove presumption. There is a clear and
cogent evidence available that cheque belongs to
the accused which bears his signature. When such
being the case it is incumbent upon the accused
to give explanation under what circumstances he
parted with the possession of Ex.P.1.
Explanation offered by the accused with regard
to possession of cheques belong to him in the
hands of the complainant is improbable.
20. The statute mandates that once the
signature of accused on the cheque is
established then the ‘reverse onus’ clause
14 Crl.A.No.886/2025
become operative. In such a situation the
obligation shifts upon the accused to discharge
the presumption imposed upon.
21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its
decision reported in (2019) 4 SCC 197 – Bir
Singh v/s Mukesh Kumar held that even a blank
cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over
by the accused which is towards some payment,
would attract presumption under Section 139 of
N.I.Act, in the absence of any cogent evidence
to show that cheque was not issued in discharge
of debt.
22. The defence raised by the accused in the
considered opinion of this court not inspire
confidence or meet the standard of
‘preponderance of probability’. In the absence
of any other relevant evidence to disprove or to
rebut the presumption available to the
complainant, the accused in the opinion of this
court has not discharged his onus in proving his
contention. As such the point No.1 taken up for
consideration is held in affirmative and point
No.2 taken up for consideration is held in
Negative.
15 Crl.A.No.886/2025
WITH REGARD TO SENTENCE:
23. Point No.3: On careful examination of
the sentence the learned magistrate sentenced
the accused to pay fine of Rs.6,10,000/- with
default sentence of simple imprisonment of one
year and also ordered to pay compensation of
Rs.6,00,000/- under Section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C.
24. It is settled position that in view of
the provisions contained in Section 4(2) of the
Cr.P.C., the provisions of that code would apply
even for regulating the inquiries and trials of
offences under special statutes like the
Negotiable Instruments Act, so long as there are
no specific provisions in the special enactment
covering the situation at hand.
25. Section 30 of Cr.P.C. provides for
Sentence of imprisonment in default of fine;
1) The Court of a Magistrate may award such
term of imprisonment in default of payment
of fine as is authorised by law; Provided
that the term–
1. is not in excess of the powers of the
Magistrate under section 29;
2. shall not, where imprisonment has been
awarded as part of the substantive
16 Crl.A.No.886/2025
sentence, exceed one-fourth of the term
of imprisonment which the Magistrate is
competent to inflict as punishment for
the offence otherwise than as
imprisonment in default of payment of
the fine.
2) The imprisonment awarded under this section
may be in addition to a substantive sentence
of imprisonment for the maximum term
awardable by the Magistrate under section
29.
26. Section 25 of the General Clauses Act
deals with recovery of fines and stipulates as
follows :-
“Sections 63 to 70 of Indian Penal Code and
the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure
for the time being in force in relation to
the issue and execution warrants for the
levy of fines shall apply to all fines
imposed under any act, regulation, rule or
bylaw unless the Act, regulation, rule or
bylaw contains an express provisions to the
contrary.”
27. The words ‘authorized by law’, appearing
in section 30(1) of Cr.P.C., 1973 mean
authorized by all provisions of law taken
17 Crl.A.No.886/2025
together and these provisions are to be found in
sections 63 to 70 of Indian Penal code, which by
the mandate of section 25 of General Clauses Act
are made applicable to all fines imposed under
the authority of any act, unless such act
contain an express provision to the contrary.
28. Section 65 of IPC provides that term
for which the court directs offender to be
imprisoned in default of payment of a fine
shall not exceed 1/4th of the term of
imprisonment which is the maximum fixed for the
offence, if the offence be punishable with
imprisonment as well as fine. Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act, provides maximum
punishment upto two years and double the amount
of fine or both.
29. At the first blush, it may appear from
the wordings of clause-(b) of the proviso to
sub-section(1) of section 30 of Cr.P.C. that the
limitation therein not to exceed one fourth of
the maximum term of imprisonment, may applicable
only in cases, wherein imprisonment and fine
could have been awarded, but where actually
substantive prison sentence alone is actually
imposed. But the provisions in section 65 of IPC
mandate that term, for which court directs the
18 Crl.A.No.886/2025
offender to be imprisoned in default of payment
of fine shall not exceed one fourth of the term
of imprisonment, which is maximum fixed for the
offence, if the offence be punishable with
imprisonment as well as fine.
30. Section 65 of IPC applies to all cases,
where the offence is punishable with
imprisonment as well as fine, i.e., cases where
fine and imprisonment can be awarded and also
those where the punishment may be either fine or
imprisonment, but not both and the only cases
that does not apply are those dealt with in
section 67 of the IPC where fine only can be
awarded. When both these provisions are
harmoniously effectuated, the result is that the
default clause cannot exceed the one fourth of
the imprisonment term, which is maximum fixed
for the offence, would come into play. This is
irrespective as to whether, the sentence
actually awarded is only fine, even in cases
where both prison term and fine could have been
awarded.
31. On careful examination, the sentence
passed in this case by the learned magistrate is
not in accordance with law. As such this court
19 Crl.A.No.886/2025
proceed to examine the powers of the appellate
court with regard to modification of sentence.
Section 386(b)(iii) and proviso to Sec.386
provides that;
386. Power of the Appellate Court. After
perusing such record and hearing the
appellant or his pleader, if he appears, and
the Public Prosecutor if he appears, and in
case of an appeal under section 377 or
section 378, the accused, if he appears, the
Appellate Court may, if it considers that
there is no sufficient ground for
interfering, dismiss the appeal, or may-
(a) xxxxx
(b) xxxxx
(I) xxxxx
(ii )xxxxx
(iii) with or without altering the finding,
alter the nature or the extent, or the
nature and extent, of the sentence, but not
so as to enhance the Same;
Provided further that appellate court shall
not inflict greater punishment for the
offence which in its opinion the accused has
committed than might have been inflicted for
that offence by the court passing the order
or sentence under appeal.
32. On careful examination of the above
stated provision, the appellate court can alter
the sentence, the only rider is that appellate
court is not empowered to enhance the same and
20 Crl.A.No.886/2025
not to inflict greater punishment than the one
might have been inflicted by the trial judge.
33. Taking into consideration of the afore
mentioned finding, this court proceed to modify
the sentence as follows:
Accused is sentenced to pay fine of
Rs.6,10,000/- and out of which
complainant is entitled for
compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- as
provided u/s 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. The
remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- is
ordered to be defrayed to the State. In
default to payment of fine, the accused
shall undergo simple imprisonment for
six months.
34. It is made clear that serving default
sentence by the accused will not absolve the
accused from paying the fine amount. As such
the point No.3 taken up for consideration is
held partly in the affirmative.
35. Point No.4:- For the foregoing reasons
on point Nos.1 to 3, I proceed to pass the
following:
21 Crl.A.No.886/2025
O R D E R
The Criminal Appeal filed
by the appellant/accused u/s 374(3)
(a) of Cr.P.C./ 415(3) of BNSS,
2023 is hereby allowed in part.
The judgment of conviction
passed in C.C.No.1272/2021 dated
07.05.2025 on the file of XII
Addl.Judge, Court of Small Causes
and ACJM, Bengaluru is hereby
confirmed.
Sentence is modified as below:
Accused is sentenced to pay
fine of Rs.6,10,000/-, out of which
Rs.6,00,000/- has to be paid as
compensation to the complainant as
provided under Section 357(1)(b) of
Cr.P.C. Remaining amount of
Rs.10,000/- is ordered to be
defrayed to the State. In default
to payment of fine, the accused
shall undergo simple imprisonment
for six months.
22 Crl.A.No.886/2025
It is made clear that serving
default sentence by the accused
will not absolve the accused from
paying the fine amount.
Send back the trial court
records along with copy of this
judgment for further action.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-1 / Sr. Sheristedar
directly on computer, typed by her, corrected by me and
then pronounced in the open court on this the 9 th day of
JUly, 2026)(MALLIKARJUNA SWAMY H.S.)
LX Addl. City Civil & Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru.
