Bangalore District Court
Siddagangamma vs Shivagami on 10 July, 2026
1
CC.No.8301/2022
KABC030210292022
Presented on : 14-03-2022
Registered on : 14-03-2022
Decided on : 10-07-2026
Duration : 4 years, 3 months, 27 days
IN THE COURT OF XII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
BENGALURU.
Dated this the 10th day of July, 2026
:Present:
Smt. Dhanalakshmi.R
XII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bengaluru.
CC.No.8301/2022
Complainant : Smt.Siddagangamma
W/o. Lakshmanaiah,
Aged about 58 years,
R/at: No.189, 1st Cross,
4th Block, Ramachandrapura,
Jalahalli Post,
Bengaluru-560013.
(By Sri.A.D.,- Advocate)
V/s
Accused : Smt.Shivagami,
W/o. Kumareshan,
Aged about Major,
R/at: No.164, 2nd Cross,
4th Block, Ramachandrapura,
Jalahalli Post,
Bengaluru-560013.
(By Sri.A.R.N., - Advocate )
2
CC.No.8301/2022
KABC030210292022
1. The date of : 31.03.2021
commission of the
offence
2. Date of the filing of : 16.10.2021
offence
3. Name of the : Smt.Siddagangamma
Complainant
4. Date of recording of 07.12.2021
evidence
5. Date of closing of : 09.12.2025
evidence
6. Offence Complained : 138 of NI Act
of
7. Opinion of the Accused is Convicted
Judge
8. Date of such order : 10.07.2026
for the following
JUDGMENT
01. This case is registered U/sec.200 of
Cr.P.C based on the written complaint given by the
complainant against the accused for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter called as NI Act
for the purpose of brevity).
3
CC.No.8301/2022
KABC030210292022
02. The case of the complainant in brief is as
under : –
The accused and her husband are close
family friends of the complainant and her husband
and they are residing in the same locality from
past 30 years. The accused and her husband have
approached the complainant and her husband in
the month of March 2019 for financial assistance
of Rs.10,00,000/- for the purpose of her business.
Accordingly, the complainant has lent hand loan of
Rs.9,50,000/- to the accused by way of cash in the
third week of March 2019. The accused has failed
to repay the hand loan amount within a period of 9
months, further period of 3 months and another
further period of 6 months as agreed by her. Upon
insistence, the accused has issued three cheques.
The cheques for sum of Rs.1,50,000/- each dated
25.01.2021 and 29.03.2021 respectively. The third
4
CC.No.8301/2022
KABC030210292022cheque is bearing No.000003 for sum of
Rs.6,50,000/- dated 25.05.2021 drawn on Bank of
Baroda, Vidhyaranyapura Branch, Bengaluru. The
cheque dated 29.05.2021 for sum of Rs.1,50,000/-
was honoured. As per the instruction of the
accused, when the complainant has presented the
second cheque dated 29.03.2021 for sum of
Rs.1,50,000/-, the same is dishonored with an
endorsement as “Funds insufficient” on
31.03.2021. When the said fact brought to the
knowledge of the accused, she has requested that
she will pay the cheque amount of Rs.1,50,000/-
at the time of payment of amount covered under
the third cheque. The complainant being unaware
of the time stipulation, has not sent the legal
notice. Later, the complainant as per the
instruction of the accused, when presented the
third cheque of Rs.6,50,000/- for encashment
through her Banker, the same came to be
5
CC.No.8301/2022
KABC030210292022
dishonored with an endorsement as “Funds
insufficient” on 28.05.2021. When the said fact
brought to the knowledge of the accused, she has
requested the complainant to represent the
cheque. Accordingly when the complainant has
represented the cheque again it came to be
dishonored on 01.07.2021 with an endorsement as
“Funds insufficient”. Again when the said fact
brought to the knowledge of the accused she has
requested the complainant to wait finally till
16.08.2021 and requested to re-present the
cheque on any day after 16.08.2021. As per the
instruction of the accused, when the complainant
has re-presented the third cheque for encashment
for the third time also, it came to be dishonoured
on 20.08.2021 with an endorsement as “funds
insufficient”. As such the complainant has issued
demand notice dt: 02.09.2021 to the accused
calling upon her to repay the cheques amount
6
CC.No.8301/2022
KABC030210292022
within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said
notice. Inspite of receiving the said notice, the
accused has not repaid amount. Hence, the
present complaint.
3. On filing of the complaint, cognizance of
the offence is taken and recorded the sworn
statement of the complainant and marked 12
documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12 The
complainant has complied all the statutory
requirements under Sec.138 of N.I.Act. Thereafter,
the case is registered against the accused and
summons issued.
4. On service of summons, the accused
has not appeared before the court. On issuance of
NBW, by advancing the case the accusedf
appeared through her counsel and she was
enlarged on bail. The substance of accusation was
7
CC.No.8301/2022
KABC030210292022
read over and explained to the accused in the
language known to her. As per the directions of
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in ” Indian Bank
Association V/s Union of India & Others reported
in (2014) 5 SCC 590 , this court has treated the
sworn statement of the complainant as his
evidence. The statement of the accused was also
recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The
accused has denied the incriminating evidence
found against her as false and stated nothing. On
application filed by the counsel for the accused
under Section 145(2) of NI Act, permission was
accorded to cross examine PW1. Accordingly, PW1
was cross examined by learned counsel for the
accused. The complainant has examined one
witness examined as PW2 and marked 02
documents as Ex.P13 and Ex.P14. PW2 was fully
cross examined by the accused. The accused
8
CC.No.8301/2022
KABC030210292022
examined herself as DW1 and not produced any
documents.
5. Heard the Learned counsel for the both
sides. Perused the records.
6. The following points arise for
consideration:
POINTS
1) Whether the complainant proves
that the accused has issued the
cheques for the legally
recoverable debt as alleged by
her?
2) Whether the accused has
committed the offence punishable
under section 138 Act?
3) What Order or Sentence?
7. The above points are answered as under:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative,
Point No.2: In the Affirmative,
9
CC.No.8301/2022
KABC030210292022Point No.3: As per the final
order for the following:
R E A S O N S
8. POINT No. 1 and 2: This Court is of the
opinion that it need not repeat the entire
averments made in the complaint here also, as this
Court has already narrated the same at the
inception of this judgment.
9. In order to bring home a liability under
Section 138 of NI Act, 1881, following elements
must spring out from the averments in the
complaint and the evidence adduced by the
complainant, viz.
1. A person must have drawn a cheque on an
account maintained by him in a bank for
payment of a certain sum of money to
another person from out of that account for
the discharge of any legally enforceable
debt or liability;
10
CC.No.8301/2022
KABC030210292022
2. The cheque has been presented to the bank
within a period of three months from the
date mentioned on the cheque or within the
period of its validity, whichever is earlier;
3. The cheque is returned by the bank unpaid
either because the amount of money
standing to the credit of the account is
insufficient to honour the cheque or that it
exceeds the amount arranged to be paid
from that account by an agreement made
with the bank;
4. The payee or the holder in due course of the
cheque makes a demand for the payment of
the said amount of money by giving a
notice in writing to the drawer of the
cheque within 30 days of the receipt of
information by him from the bank
regarding the return of the cheque as
unpaid;
5. The drawer of such cheque fails to make
the payment to the payee or the holder in
due course of the cheque within 15 days of
the receipt of the notice.
10. It is well settled that whenever
complainant alleges that the accused has
committed the offence punishable under Section
138 of NI Act, obviously, the complainant has to
11
CC.No.8301/2022
KABC030210292022
establish that there was a legally enforceable debt
and to discharge the said legally enforceable debt
the accused has issued the cheque and
subsequently the said cheque has been
dishonoured because of insufficiency of funds in
the account of the drawer/accused. Keeping in
view of these main and important ingredients of
Section 138 of NI Act, this Court proceeds to
discuss the evidence available on record.
11. As been stated above, the complainant
has examined herself as PW-1. The PW-1 has filed
affidavit in lieu of her examination in chief under
Section 145 of N I Act reiterating the entire
averments of the complaint.
12. The Ex.P-1 and Ex.P2 are the cheques
dt: 29.03.2021 & 25.05.2021. On perusal of the
said cheques makes it clear that it supports the
12
CC.No.8301/2022
KABC030210292022
stand taken by the complainant herein. The Ex.P3
is the Bank endorsement disclose that the cheque
at Ex.P1 is dishonoured on 31.03.2021. The Ex.P4
to Ex.P6 are the Bank endorsements disclose that
the cheque at Ex.P2 has been dishonoured on
28.05.2021, 01.07.2021 and 20.08.2021
respectively for the reason “Funds Insufficient” in
the account of the drawer. As per clause (a) of
proviso to Section 138 of NI Act the cheque is to be
presented for encashment within three months or
within the period of its validity from the date on
which the cheque has issued. The Ex.P1 & Ex.P2
bares the date 29.03.2021 & 25.05.2021
respectively and it was presented on 31.03.2021,
28.05.2021, 01.07.2021 and 20.08.2021
respectively which is within the prescribed period.
13. Further, as per clause (b) of proviso to
Section 138 of N I Act, the complainant is required
13
CC.No.8301/2022
KABC030210292022
to issue legal notice, in writing, to the
drawer/accused making a demand for repayment
of the said cheque amount within 30 days from the
date of receipt of information about the dishonour
of the cheque. The Ex.P3 is the drawee’s Bank
endorsement dt: 31.03.2021 regarding dishonour
of Ex.P1 cheque and Ex.P4 to Ex.P6 are the
drawee’s Bank endorsement dated 28.05.2021,
01.07.2021 and 20.08.2021 respectively regarding
dishonour of Ex.P2 cheque. It is to be seen that
the cheque at Ex.P2 is dt: 25.05.2021 and it has
been presented for encashment for 03 times within
the period of 03 months from the date of cheque.
As it is held in catana of cases the cheque can be
presented for encahsment any number of times
within the period of its validity. The Ex.P-7 is the
office copy of the legal notice dated 02.09.2021
and Ex.P8 is the Postal Receipt dt: 02.09.2021.
Therefore, the complainant has issued legal notice
14
CC.No.8301/2022
KABC030210292022
within 30 days from the date of knowledge of
dishonor of cheque at Ex.P2. But the cheque at
Ex.P1 is dishonoured on 31.03.2021 and legal
notice is dt: 02.09.2021 which is issued for
dishonored for both the cheques at Ex.P1 and
Ex.P2. Hence the notice at Ex.P7 is not issued
within 30 days from the date of dishonour of Ex.P1
cheque. The learned counsel for the complainant
has produced the reportable order of the Hon’ble
Apex court in M.A.No.665/2021 in SMW (C)
No.3/2020 in In Re congnizance for exention of
limitation wherein it is held that due covid-19 the
period from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021 shall also
stand excluded in computing the periods
presecribed under Sections 23(4) and 29A of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section
12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and
provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of Negotiable
Instrument Act, 1881 and any other laws, which
15
CC.No.8301/2022
KABC030210292022
prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting
proceedings. Hence as per the above said order,
the provisions of clause (a) & (b) of proviso to
Section 138 of N I Act have been complied with.
The Ex.P.9 is the postal acknowledgment dt:
17.09.2021 and it shows that the legal notice got
issued by the complainant is served to the
accused. As per clause (c) of the proviso to Section
138 of N I Act, the drawer/accused is entitled to
have 15 days time to make the payment of the
cheque amount. Therefore, the complainant was
required to wait till 01.10.2021 According to the
complainant, no payment was made by the
drawer/accused within that period. Thus the
cause of action for filing the complaint arose on
02.10.2021. Further the clause (b) of Section 142
of N I Act makes it clear that the complaint has to
be filed within 30 days from the date of cause of
action arose. Thus this complaint was required to
16
CC.No.8301/2022
KABC030210292022
be filed on or before 02.11.2021. The endorsement
made by this Court on the complaint reveals that
the complainant presented this complaint on
21.10.2021. Hence the complaint is well within the
time limit. Therefore, this court is of the
considered opinion that that the complainant has
complied all the necessary components of Section
138 of NI Act.
14. The complainant has stated that the
accused and her husband are close to each other
and they are known to each other from past 30
years as they are residing in the same locality. The
said aspect is not at all denied by the accused. She
has admitted that she knows the complainant. In
her reply notice at Ex.P7 and also during her chief
examination accused stated that she knows the
complainant from the year 2019. The complainant
has stated that the accused for the repayment of
17
CC.No.8301/2022
KABC030210292022
hand loan of Rs.9,50,000/- has issued Ex.P1 and
Ex.P2 cheques and another cheque for sum of
Rs.1,50,000/- dated 25.01.2021. The cheque for
sum of Rs.1,50,000/- dated 25.01.2021 was
encashed, but the cheques at Ex.P1 and Ex.P2
came to be dishonored. The accused has not at all
denied that the cheques at Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 does
not belongs to her account and she has also not
denied her signature in the said cheques. She has
only disputed the handwriting in the said cheques
are not written by the accused.
15. The accused has stated that she has
borrowed only Rs.50,000/- from the complainant
and the complainant has a came to her house and
picked up quarrel, insisting to pay Rs.1,50,000/-
along with interest. Hence the accused has given
complaint before the police station. In the police
station, the police have forcibly taken the Ex.P1
18
CC.No.8301/2022
KABC030210292022
and Ex.P2 cheques and another cheque for sum of
Rs.1,50,000/-. The cheque for sum of
Rs.1,50,000/- which has been encashed is given
by the accused for prepayment of the hand loan,
whereas she has given the post dated Ex.P1 and
Ex.P2 cheque as a security purpose only by
signing the cheques. The other contents in the
cheques are not written by her. At this stage this
Court relies upon At this stage this court relies
upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex court
reported in (2019) 2 SCR 24 between Birsingh vs.
Mukesh Kumar, wherein it is held that :
” if a signed blank cheque is voluntarily
presented to a payee, towards some payment,
the payee may fill up the amount and other
particulars. This in itself would not invalidate
the cheque and would attract presumption
under Section 139 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act. The onus would still be on the
accused to prove that the cheque was not in
discharge of a debt or liability by adducing
evidence.”.
19
CC.No.8301/2022
KABC030210292022
16. This court also relies upon the judgment
of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi
Dyechem vs. State of Gujarat & Ors, reported in
(2012) 13 SCC 375 wherein the Hon’ble Apex
Court while uphelding the validity of post-dated
cheque in a proceeding u/s 138 of the Act, has
categorically held that the drawer of a post-dated
cheque cannot be allowed to get away with the
penal provisions of Section 138 of the Act by
countermanding payment of the said post-dated
cheque.
17. As per the above said judgments the
contention of the accused the she has issued
signed, blank, post dated cheques cannot absolve
the liability of the accused. In this case the
issuance of the post dated cheques as per Ex.P1
and Ex.P2 are not in dispute. The signature of the
accused in the said cheques is also not in dispute.
Hence the presumption under Section 118 of the
20
CC.No.8301/2022
KABC030210292022
NI Act that the cheques in question were drawn for
consideration and the presumption under Section
139 of the NI Act that the holder of the cheque
received the said cheque in discharge of a legally
enforceable debt or liability arises against the
accused.
18. The accused in order to rebut the said
presumption has cross examined the complainant
at length ,cross examined PW.2 and also examined
herself as DW1. The accused during the cross
examination of the complainant has questioned
the financial capacity of the complainant to lend
sum of Rs.9,50,000/- to her. It is pertinent to note
that the complainant has specifically stated that
her husband has retired in the year 2016 and he
got retirement benefits. Out of the said amount
she has lent amount to the accused. The daughter
of the complainant who examined herself as PW2
21
CC.No.8301/2022
KABC030210292022
has also deposed the same and she has produced
the Bank statement of her father at Ex.P13 and
her bank statement at Ex.P14 respectively. The
learned counsel for the complainant has stated
that as per Ex.P13 on 25.02.2016, the husband of
the complainant got retirement benefits. The said
amount is tune of Rs.6,44,380/-. It is pertinent to
note that the accused has given reply notice to the
complainant as per Ex.P7. In the said reply notice,
the accused has nowhere challenged the financial
capacity of the complainant to lend sum of
Rs.9,50,000/- to the accused.
19. At this stage this court relies upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex court reported in
(2022) 6 SCC 735 between Tedhi Singh v. Narayan
Das Mahant, wherein it is held that the
complainant need not show in first his financial
22
CC.No.8301/2022
KABC030210292022
capacity, unless accused sets up case questioning
complainant’s capacity in reply to statutory notice.
20. At this stage, this Court also relies upon
the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported
in (2023) 16 SCC 125 between Rajaram since
deceased through LRs vs. Marudachalam, since
deceased through LRs. wherein it is held that the
presumption under Section 118 and 139 of NI Act
can be rebutted by the accused, examining the
income tax officer and bank officials of the
complainant/drawee. As per the above said
judgments when the accused has not examined
any official before the court and also in the reply
to the statutory notice has not questioned the
complainant’s financial capacity to lend the
amount, the contention of the accused that the
complainant had no wherewithal to lend amount
to the accused does not survive consideration.
23
CC.No.8301/2022
KABC030210292022
21. It is the specific defence of the accused
that the complainant is a chronic money lender
who lends money illegally without valid license.
The accused in the month of March 2019 has
borrowed hand loan of Rs.50,000/- from the
complainant and she was paying monthly interest
of Rs.2,500/- regularly till july 2020. But due to
the personal difficulties, she could not pay the
interest for the month of August to October 2021.
Hence, the complainant during the last week of
October 2021 went to the house of the accused
and abused her in filthy languages and demanded
for exorbitant sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. Hence, the
accused in order to protect herself from the
complainant, has gone to the police station and
filed complaint. In the police station, the police
have coerced the accused to issue a post dated
cheque for sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and accordingly
24
CC.No.8301/2022
KABC030210292022
she has issued a cheque dated 25.01.2021 in the
presence of the police. But the complainant has
insisted to give other two post dated cheques as a
security purpose. Accordingly, the accused left
with no option has issued two post dated cheques
dated 29.03.2021 and 25.05.2021 to the
complainant. Though the cheque of Rs.1,50,000/-
has been encashed by the complainant, by
misusing the other two cheques she has filed false
case against the accused.
22. It is to be seen that the accused though
specifically taken a contention that she has issued
Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 cheques and also another cheque
for sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant in the
police station, but she has not at all produced the
copy of the complaint given by her in the police
station. During the cross-examination of the
accused, when it is specifically questioned to her
25
CC.No.8301/2022
KABC030210292022
that whether she can produce the copy of the
complaint given to the police station, she stated
that the police have refused to receive her
complaint. Further during her cross-examination
when the certified copy of the complaint dated
29.10.2020 is shown to the accused, she has not
accepted the same stating that the handwriting in
the said document is not written by her. Further
she has also refused to accept the statement given
by her before the police station dated 30.10.2020
which is confronted to her. It is to be seen that the
complainant has also not produced those
documents before the court.
23. The complainant has produced the Ex.P14
document i.e. the certified copy of the letter
addressed to the PSI of Vidyaranyapura Police
Station on 03.11.2020, in which it is mentioned
that the accused has borrowed a sum of
26
CC.No.8301/2022
KABC030210292022
Rs.9,50,000/- from the complainant and for
settlement of the said hand loan she has issued 3
cheques, which are Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 cheques and
another cheque of Rs.1,50,000/- dated
25.01.2021. It is pertinent to note that the said
document bares the seal and signature of the PSI
of Vidyaranyapura Police Station. The accused has
simply denied the said document. But it is
pertinent to note that the accused has not taken
any action against the police for having issued
such a document to the complainant. It is also
pertinent to note that the accused though stated
that she has borrowed only Rs.50,000/- from the
complainant and she was regularly paying interest
till July 2020, but she has not produced any
documents before the court. It is to be seen that
the cheque at Ex.P1 came to be dishonored on
31.03.2021. The cheque at Ex.P2 came to be
dishonored on 28.05.2021, 01.07.2021 and
27
CC.No.8301/2022
KABC030210292022
28.02.2021 as per Ex.P4 to Ex.P6 respectively. If
as per the defence of the accused, when the
cheque of Rs.1,50,000/- dated 25.01.2021 is
honoured on 29.01.2021 itself, then what
prevented the accused to take action against the
complainant for not returning her two other post-
dated cheques remained unanswered. Even after
the appearance of the accused before the court,
she has not taken any action against the
complainant for the alleged misuse of the cheques
at Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. The accused has also not
taken any action against the police officials for
coercively taking her cheques in the police station.
Further, the accused has also not given any stop
payment instruction to her banker for not to
honour the cheques at Ex.P1 and Ex.P2.
24. The learned counsel for the accused has
relied upon the following citations.
28
CC.No.8301/2022
KABC030210292022
1. (2024) 8 SCC 573 between Dattatreya vs.
Sharanappa.
2. (2023) 16 SCC 125 Rajaram since
deceased through legal heirs vs.
Maruthachalam since deceased through
legal representatives.
3. (2019) 5 SCC 418 between Baslingappa
vs. Mudibasappa.
4. (2015) 1 SCC 99 between K Subramani v.
K Damodara Naidu.
25. This Court has carefully gone through
the entire judgments in detail. But the ratio laid
down in the aforesaid cases does not applicable to
the defence taken by the accused, as she has
failed to prove that the police have forcibly taken
the Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 cheques as a security and the
same has been misused by the complainant. The
accused has to rebut the presumption under
Section 139 of the NI Act, the standard of proof for
doing so is that of “Preponderance of probability”.
Therefore if the accused is able to raise a probable
29
CC.No.8301/2022
KABC030210292022
defence which creates doubts about the existence
of the legally enforceable debt or liability, the
prosecution can fail. But it is to be seen that in
this case the accused has failed to rebut the
presumption. Hence, for the above said reasons it
is held that the accused has committed an offence
punishable under Section 138 of the Act. As such,
Point No.1 and 2 are answered in the AFFIRMATIVE.
138 of NI Act.
26. Point No.3: Negotiable Instruments Act
was enacted to bring credibility to the cheque. The
very purpose of the enactment is to promote the
use of the Negotiable Instrument, while to
discourage the issuance of the cheque without
having sufficient funds in the account. Such being
the case, the intention of the legislature is that
complainant be suitably compensated while the
accused be punished for his act.
30
CC.No.8301/2022
KABC030210292022
27. When compensation is awarded
enforcement of the same come into question. There
is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure
for imposing default sentence for enforcing the
payment of compensation. In this regard, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in
2002 (2) SCC 420 between Suganthi Suresh
Kumar Vs. Jagadeeshan was pleased to hold that
“the court may enforce the order by imposing
sentence in default”. The same is reaffirmed in
latest decision in 2010 AIR SCW 3398 between
K.A.Abbas H.S.A. Vs Sabu Joseph. Therefore, it is
deemed fit to provide default sentence in order to
enforce the payment of compensation. Ex.P.1 and
Ex.P2 cheques are of the year 2021. Therefore, the
complainant is deprived of the money that was
rightfully due to her for about 05 years.
Accordingly, it is deemed fit that a compensation
31
CC.No.8301/2022
KABC030210292022
of Rs.10,42,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Forty Two
Thousand only) be granted. It is to be seen that as
per the reportable judgment of the Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka in Crl.R.P.No.996/2016 dt:
09.07.2025 between M/s.Banavathy and company
Vs. Maheer Electro Mech (P) Ltd., and to others the
Hon’ble High Court at paragraph No.21 has held
as under:
“while passing the order of the
sentence after determining the
fine/Compensation the court shall
also pass an order to pay future
interest at the rate of 9% p.a on the
compensation amount payable to the
complainant by fixing time of one or
two months to deposit compensation
amount so that even if the matter is
challenged before the Session Court in
appeal and High Court in Revision the
interest of the complainant will be
protected”.
28. Hence, as per the above judgment the
complainant is entitled for future interest at the
32
CC.No.8301/2022
KABC030210292022
rate of 9% p.a., on the compensation amount from
the date of judgment till its repayment. Further the
accused is directed to deposit the compensation
amount before this court within three months from
the date of this order. Accordingly, in the light of
above discussions, this court proceed to pass the
following:-
ORDER
Acting under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C.,
the accused is convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act
and she is sentenced to pay fine of
Rs.10,42,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Forty
Two Thousand only) and in default
accused to undergo Simple Imprisonment
for a period of six months.
If the fine amount is recovered a sum
of Rs.10,40,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Forty
Thousand only) is ordered to be paid to the
complainant by way of compensation as per
the provisions under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.
33
CC.No.8301/2022
KABC030210292022and the remaining amount of Rs.2,000/- is
to be appropriated to the State.
The complainant is entitled for future
interest at the rate of 9% p.a., on the
compensation amount from the date of
judgment till its complete repayment.
The accused is directed to deposit the
compensation amount before this court
within three months from the date of this
order.
The Bail Bond and cash surety of the
accused shall stand canceled.
Supply a free copy of this Judgment to
the accused.
(Dictated directly using mobile Adalath AI app, copied and computerized by the
stenographer, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Court on this
10th day July, 2026).
(Dhanalakshmi. R)
XII Addl. CJM, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURES
Witnesses examined for the Complainant:
34
CC.No.8301/2022
KABC030210292022PW.1 : Smt.Siddagangamma
PW.2 : Smt.Susheelamma
Documents Ex.ed for the Complainant:
Ex.P.1 & 2 Cheques Ex.P.3 to 6 Memo of the Banker Ex.P.7 Copy of Legal Notice Ex.P.8 Postal Receipt Ex.P.9 Postal Acknowledgment Ex.P.10 Reply notice Ex.P.11 Postal envelop Ex.P.12 Letter, dtd 03.11.2020 Ex.P.13 & 14 Bank Statements
Witnesses examined for the defence Accused:
DW.1 : Smt.Shivagami
Documents Ex.ed for the defence Accused:-
Nil
(Dhanalakshmi. R)
XII Addl. CJM., Bengaluru.
35
CC.No.8301/2022
KABC030210292022
CC.8301/202210.07.2026
