Bangalore District Court
M N Marappa Reddy vs R Pallavi on 18 June, 2026
KABC0A0026422025
IN THE COURT OF LXXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU.
(CCH.74)
PRESENT:
Smt. Anitha N.P., B.A.L., L.L.M.,
LXXIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru.
Dated this the 18th day of June 2026
Crl. Appeal. No.25296/2025
Appellants/ M. N. Marappa Reddy,
Accused:- S/o: Myakala Narasimaiah,
Aged about 45 years,
R/at No.209/1, 1st Floor, 7th Main,
Suddagunte Palya, C. V. Raman Nagar,
Bangalore 560093.
(By Sri.M.Gangadhara Shetty - Adv.,)
V/s
Respondents/ Smt. R. Pallavi,
Complainant: W/o: Vagesh,
Aged about 26 years,
R/at No.209/1, Ground Floor,
7th Main, Suddagunte Palya,
C. V. Raman Nagar, Bangalore 560093.
(By Sri.K.V.Vijaykumar Gowda- Adv.,)
2 Crl.Appeal No.25296/2025
JUDGMENT
This is an Appeal filed by Accused under Section
374(3)(a) of Cr.P.C., r/w sec.415 (3) of BNSS, being
aggrieved by the Judgment dated 10.07.2025 passed in
C.C.No.54676/2020 on the file of XXXIII ACJM,
Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru, convicting him for an offence
punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act [hereinafter referred to as ‘NI Act‘, for
brevity] and sentencing him to pay fine of Rs.13,50,000/-
and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple
imprisonment for 6 months. Out of the fine amount, a
sum of Rs.13,40,000/- is directed to be paid to the
respondent/complainant as compensation and
remaining Rs.10,000/- is ordered to be remitted towards
State expenses.
2. For the sake of convenience the parties
hereinafter will be referred to with their ranking assigned
before the trial court. The appellant is the accused and
the respondent is the complainant before the trial court.
3. The facts of the case:-
The complainant and accused are known to each
other. That the accused is proprietor of juice centre and
3 Crl.Appeal No.25296/2025to extend business and to purchase a house at
Hirendahalli Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bangalore East
Taluk and also to meet his family commitments,
borrowed hand loan of Rs.9 lakhs during the month of
March 2020 from the complainant agreeing to repay the
said amount within 4 months. Towards discharge of said
liability the accused issued a post dated cheque bearing
No.700394 dated 13.08.2020 for a sum of Rs. 9 lakhs.
The complainant presented the said cheque before his
banker for encashment. However the said cheque
returned unpaid with an endorsement dated 14.08.2020
as ‘payment stopped’. The complainant hence issued
legal notice dated 25.08.2020 to the accused. The said
legal notice was duly served on accused on 26.08.2020.
Inspite of receiving legal notice the accused neither paid
the cheque amount nor given reply. Thereby, the
Appellant/accused has committed the offence
punishable under Sec.138 of NI Act. Thereafter the
Complainant approached the Trial Court for appropriate
legal action against the Accused.
4. Pursuant to summons the Accused entered
appearance through his Counsel before the Trial Court.
The substance of the accusation was read over and
4 Crl.Appeal No.25296/2025
explained to the Accused in the language known to him.
The Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
The Complainant got examined herself as PW.1 and got
marked in all 10 documents as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 and
closed her side evidence. On the other hand the accused
got examined himself as DW1 and got marked 52
documents as per Ex.D1 to 52.
5. The trial court after hearing the counsel for
Complainant and accused, convicted the Accused for the
offence punishable U/Sec.138 of NI Act vide Judgment
dtd 10.07.2025
6. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment of
conviction, the Accused is in appeal on the following
grounds:
1. The impugned judgment of conviction and
sentence is illegal, arbitrary, perverse and
against to the principles of natural justice.
The Judgment of the trial court is contrary
the true facts and circumstances. The
impugned Judgment is based on surmises
and conjecture. The cheque in question was
not issued towards discharge of any debt or
liability.
5 Crl.Appeal No.25296/2025
2. The complainant not proved her case beyond
all reasonable grounds and she has not
complied the necessary provisions of NI Act.
3. The trial court not appreciated the cross-
examination of complainant in proper
perspective and not considered the specific
defence taken by the accused. The
complainant in the legal notice and in the
sworn statement has stated that accused
borrowed hand loan of Rs,.9 lakhs in the
month of March 2020. However during the
course of cross-examination the
complainant stated contrary to her
complaint, sworn statement and legal notice.
The complainant not proved her financial
capacity to lend amount of Rs.9 lakhs. In
the legal notice though complainant stated
that she arranged Rs.9 lakhs from her
friends and relatives to help the appellant,
but to prove the said fact no document is
placed on record. The complainant not
examined said friends or relatives to prove
her case.
4. The trial court wrongly concluded that the
accused not examined the police official
Rama Reddy and wrongly held that if the
cheque of accused is forcefully collected
then accused could have issued said cheque
by filling the same. The accused not issued
the cheque willfully and in such a situation
6 Crl.Appeal No.25296/2025
the accused cannot summon the said police
officials. Hence, the reason assigned by the
trial court is not proper. The complainant
misused the cheque of accused by colluding
with her father and police official by name
Rama Reddy.
5. The trial court failed to appreciate the
material variations and major contradictions
in the pleading and evidence and the
defence of the accused. The trial court
misread the provisions of Sec.118 & 139 of
NI Act without proper appreciation of facts
and evidence. The impugned sentence is
arbitrary. Under the above grounds the
Appellant sought for setting aside the
impugned judgment by allowing the appeal.
7. After service of notice, the Respondent appeared
through his counsel. Records secured from trial court.
8. Heard both sides arguments.
9. Perused the evidence, documents on record and
also impugned Judgment of conviction passed by the
Trial Court.
10. On re-appreciation of the evidence, documents
on record, the following points would emerge for the
consideration of this court.
7 Crl.Appeal No.25296/2025
1. Whether the Appellant proves that the
cheque in question was not issued
towards any legally recoverable debt?
2. Whether the Judgment of conviction
passed by the Trial Court calls for
interference by the hands of this
court?
3. What Order?
11. My finding on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative.
Point No.2 : In the Negative.
Point No.3 : As per final order for
the following:
REASONS
12. POINT NOs.1 and 2:-
Since the above two points are interlinked, in order
to avoid repetition of facts the above points have been
taken up together for consideration.
13. Before re-appreciating the evidence on record, it
is necessary to refer the decision of the Hon’ble Apex
Court reported in 2019 (3) KCCR 2473 (SC)
(Basalingappa V/s Mudibasappa), which is relied on by
the accused wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court while
considering several earlier rulings on the offence
8 Crl.Appeal No.25296/2025
U/Sec.138 of NI Act and also on the presumption
U/Sec.118 and 139 of NI Act, at Para 23 was pleased to
observe as follows:
23. We having noticed the ratio laid down
by this Court in above cases on Sections 118(a)
and 139, we now summarise the principles
enumerated by this Court in following manner:-
(i) Once the execution of cheque is
admitted Section 139 of the Act mandates a
presumption that the cheque was for the
discharge of any debt or other liability.
(ii) The presumption under Section 139 is
a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the
Accused to raise the probable defence. The
standard of proof for rebutting the presumption
is that of preponderance of probabilities.
(iii) To rebut the presumption, it is open
for the Accused to rely on evidence led by him
or Accused can also rely on the materials
submitted by the Complainant in order to raise
a probable defence. Inference of preponderance
of probabilities can be drawn not only from the
materials brought on record by the parties but
also by reference to the circumstances upon
which they rely.
(iv) That it is not necessary for the Accused to
come in the witness box in support of his
defence, Sec.139 imposed an evidentiary
burden and not a persuasive burden.
(v) It is not necessary for the Accused to
come in the witness box to support his defence.
9 Crl.Appeal No.25296/2025
14. In another ruling reported in AIR 2010 SC
1898 (Rangappa V/s Mohan),which is relied on by
accused the Honble Apex court has observed as
under:-
“Existence of legally recoverable debt or
liability- The presumption mandated by Section
139 of the Act does indeed include the
existence of a legally enforceable debt or
liability. This is of course in the nature of a
rebuttable presumption and it is open to the
Accused to raise a defence wherein the
existence of a legally enforceable debt or
liability can be contested. However, there can
be no doubt that there is an initial presumption
which favours the Complainant. Section 139 of
the Act is an example of a reverse onus clause
that has been included in furtherance of the
legislative objective of improving the credibility
of negotiable instruments. While Section 138 of
the Act specifies a strong criminal remedy in
relation to the dishonour of cheques, the
rebuttable presumption under Section 139, is a
device to prevent undue delay in the course of
litigation. However, it must be remembered that
the offence made punishable by Section 138
can be better described as a regulatory offence
since the bouncing of a cheque is largely in the
nature of a civil wrong whose impact is usually
confined to the private parties involved in
commercial transactions. In such a scenario,
the test of proportionality should guide the
construction and interpretation of reverse onus
clauses and the Accused/defendant cannot be
expected to discharge an unduly high standard
or proof. In the absence of compelling
justifications, reverse onus clauses usually
impose an evidentiary burden and not a
10 Crl.Appeal No.25296/2025persuasive burden. Keeping this in view, it is a
settled position that when an Accused has to
rebut the presumption under Section 139, the
standard of proof for doing so is that of
‘preponderance of probabilities’. Therefore, if
the Accused is able to raise a probable defence
which creates doubts about the existence of a
legally enforceable debt or liability, the
prosecution can fail. The Accused can rely on
the materials submitted by the Complainant
and it is conceivable that in some cases the
Accused may not need to adduce evidence of
his/her own.”
15. Keeping in mind the broad principles laid down
by the Hon’ble Apex Court, let me re-appreciate the
evidence and documents on record.
16. The definite case of the
Complainant/Respondent is that the complainant and
accused are known to each other. That the accused is
proprietor of juice centre and to extend business and to
purchase a house at Hirendahalli Village, Bidarahalli
Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk and also to meet his family
commitments, borrowed hand loan of Rs.9 lakhs during
the month of March 2020 from the complainant agreeing
to repay the said amount within 4 months. Towards
discharge of said liability the accused issued a post
dated cheque bearing No.700394 dated 13.08.2020 for a
sum of Rs. 9 lakhs. The complainant presented the said
11 Crl.Appeal No.25296/2025
cheque before his banker for encashment. However the
said cheque returned unpaid with an endorsement dated
14.08.2020 as ‘payment stopped’. The complainant
hence issued legal notice dated 25.08.2020 to the
accused. The said legal notice was duly served on
accused on 26.08.2020. Inspite of receiving legal notice
the accused neither paid the cheque amount nor given
reply.
17. The complainant in order to prove her case got
examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked in all 10
documents as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 and closed her side
evidence. On the other hand the accused proved his
defence examined as DW1 and got marked in 52
documents as per Ex.D1 to 52.
18. Let me go through the documentary evidence
placed by the Complainant in this case. Ex.P.1 is
Original cheque, Ex.P.2 is Bank return memo, Ex.P.3 is
Office copy of the legal notice, Ex.P.4 is Postal receipt,
Ex.P.5 is Postal track consignment, Ex.P.6 is Bank
account statement, Ex.P.7 is Reply notice, Ex.P.8 & 9 are
2 Statement of accounts, Ex.P.10 is Rental agreement.
12 Crl.Appeal No.25296/2025
19. In the case on hand on perusal of the cross-
examination of complainant/PW1 she deposed that the
accused was tenant under her father and he vacated the
rented premises on 08.09.2020. The present complaint is
filed on 23.09.2020. From 2018 to 2020 she worked as
Pharmacist/Production officer in GSK company. She was
getting salary of Rs.23,000/- per month, she has studied
Diploma in Pharmacy. She paid Rs.9 lakhs in interval
and part by part, by way of Google pay, cheque, cash etc.
She denied that as they refused return the lease amount
to accused the accused approached Baiyappanahalli
Police on 08.08.2020. She denied that it is only a sum of
Rs.2,27,000/- was paid to accused through Google pay
and out of that he paid Rs.70,000/- through Google pay.
She also denied that when the accused requested to
appropriate the balance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- out of
the available lease amount of Rs.5 lakhs to be paid by
her father she started quarrel with accused.
20. This PW1 in her further cross-examination
deposed that the accused himself issued completed
cheque and given the same to her at Suddaguntepalya in
the month of March 2020. She denied that on
08.08.2020 police constable of Byappanahalli by name
13 Crl.Appeal No.25296/2025
Rama Reddy collected Ex.P1 cheque from the accused
towards settlement held at police station and handed
over same to complainant. She denied that the payee
name and so also the amount are filled by the
complainant.
21. This PW1 further deposed that she has no
document to show that she was saving for opening
medical shop. Ex.P9 is not belongs to her but the same
belongs to her husband. Her marriage was solemnized in
the year 2019. As she borrowed money from her
husband and transferred money to accused she
produced Ex.P9. She is not an income tax assessee her
husband is an income tax assessee.
22. This PW1 in her further cross-examination
admits that in the month of April 2020 some differences
were arose between them in respect of rented house.
However she do not know the difference between her
father and accused in respect of lease amount. She
pleaded her ignorance that accused has given his signed
blank cheque for lease amount as a security to her
father. She denied that in view of the difference between
her father and accused in respect of paying back the
14 Crl.Appeal No.25296/2025
lease amount, her father lodged complaint before
Baiyappanahalli Police as against accused and at that
stage the complainant collected Ex.P1 cheque for
guarantee of her loan of Rs.2,27,000/-
23. This PW1 in her further cross-examination
deposed that her father is owner of property shown in
Ex.P10. Ex.P10 is rental agreement and it was for a
period of 11 months and the same was not renewed. She
denied that rent is converted to lease and the accused
has paid in total Rs.7 lakhs to her father towards lease
amount and also issued cheque No. 660855 as security
to balance amount of Rs.1 lakh. She denied that the
accused vacated the premises on 20.09.2020 in view of
the undertaking of her father to return the lease amount.
She has given complaint to Baiyappanahalli Police
Station against the accused for misbehaving with her
when she demanded him to pay back her money. She
admits that the accused and his wife have lodged
complaint before Baiyappanahalli Police Station against
her and her parents stating that they have assaulted
them. She denied that in the police station they got
settled the dispute by deducting her loan amount of
Rs.2,10,000/-out of lease amount of Rs.7 lakhs and
15 Crl.Appeal No.25296/2025
directed her father to pay the remaining lease amount
and thereby she collected the cheque in question for
security in presence of police.
24. On perusal of the evidence of accused he
deposed in his chief examination that he started his
business Shree Venkateshwara Juice Junction in the
year 2010 ad thereafter he started S.V.Lassi Corner
Tecnotree and also other businesses. He was having
good business and he was getting Rs.3 lakhs to 5 lakhs
per month from business. He is an income tax assessee.
On 12.03.2013 he taken rented house from the
complainant’s father by name Suresh Reddy by paying
advance of Rs.1 lakh and the rent of Rs.8,000/-. He
vacated the premises on 08.09.2020. He paid rent from
2013 to 2019 at Rs.8,000/- to Rs.11,500/-. In the year
2019 the rent agreement was converted to lease for a
sum of Rs.7 lakhs and for the said amount the previous
advance of Rs.1 lakh was adjusted and in addition to
that on 05.03.2019 he paid Rs.5 lakhs through cheque.
In respect of remaining balance he requested some time
and as the father of the complainant demanded blank
cheque he issued cheque bearing No.660855. The said
cheque is not returned though he paid 10 installments
16 Crl.Appeal No.25296/2025
up to December 2019. Even for renewal of lease the said
Suresh Reddy not come forward. On 13.03.2020 he
purchased a house for a sum of Rs.60 lakhs and
arranged amount. As the complainant was good friend of
him on 13.03.2020 he requested complainant to transfer
Rs.1 lakh to his account and the complainant
transferred Rs.1 lakh under 2 transactions. The
complainant voluntarily deposited additional amount to
accused and stating that her husband will grab the
money from her and hence deposited amount of
Rs.77,000/- on 14.03.2020 and Rs.50,000/- on
21.03.2020. Hence, the complainant has paid only
Rs.2,27,000/- he had returned a sum of Rs.70,000/- on
different dates and he was due for a sum of
Rs.1,57,000/-. After purchase of his house due to Covid
19 Pandemic he went to his native and thereafter he
alone returned to Bangalore and requested the father of
the complainant to return his amount after deducting
the above said of Rs.1,57,000/-. On 02.8.2020 the
complainant and her parents picked up quarrel in the
street and he called police. Again on 07.08.2020 the
complainant and her parent and sister by entering his
house have man handled his wife and son. Hence he
lodged complaint in this regard and police stated him to
17 Crl.Appeal No.25296/2025
come on next day i.e., 08-08-2020. On the said day a
police constable by name Rama Reddy solved their
difference and they obtained statement of mother of
complainant and as the father of the complainant stated
that the transactions between him and the accused and
the complainant and accused are different he assured
that on 30.10.2020 he will return the lease amount after
deducting necessary charges. The accused also assured
to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,57,000/-. At that time
the at the instance of said police constable Rama Reddy
as he said that after vacating the house if he ran away
without paying Rs.1,57,000/- and hence complainant
demanded a blank cheque as guarantee. At that time the
said police Rama Reddy also forced him to give a blank
signed cheque. Accordingly, he has given Ex.P1 chque to
the complainant and he handed over the same to Rama
Reddy. On the contrary the complaint filed by accused
was taken as non-cognizable and they issued NCR on
08.08.2020. On 14.8.2020 he received the message from
his banker that the cheque was presented for collection.
On the same day he went to bank and he came to know
that his cheque was presented without waiting till
30.09.2020. Immediately he given written complaint to
the bank to stop payment and also to hold the said
18 Crl.Appeal No.25296/2025
cheque. The legal notice was sent to address where he
was staying in the first floor as tenant. He has given
reply notice to complainant on 28.09.2020 narrating the
fraudulent act. Though he vacated the house on
08.09.2020 itself the complainant knowing fully well has
issued notice to wrong address.
25. This accused has produced and got marked in
all 52 documents.Ex.D1 is Rental agreement, Ex.D2 is
Registration certificate, Ex.D3 is Trade license renewal
certificate, Ex.D4 is Renewed license, Ex.D5 is Renewed
license, Ex.D6 is Trade license certificate, Ex.D7 is
License renewal acknowledgment, Ex.D8 is Renewed
license, Ex.D9 is Renewed agreement, Ex.D10 is
Passbook, Ex.D11 is Letter of understanding, Ex.D12 is
Renewed license, Ex.D13 is Renewed license, Ex.D14 is
Renewed license, Ex.D15 is Copy of Registration
certificate, Ex.D16 is Renewed license, Ex.D17 to 21 are
Photo printouts, Ex.D22 is ITR-V along with statement of
income, Ex.D23 is ITR-V along with statement of income,
Ex.D24 is ITR-V along with statement of income, Ex.D25
is ITR-V along with statement of income, Ex.D26 is ITR-V
along with statement of income, Ex.D27 is ITR-V along
with statement of income, Ex.D28 is ITR
19 Crl.Appeal No.25296/2025
acknowledgment along with statement of income, Ex.D29
is ITR acknowledgment, Ex.D30 is ITR acknowledgment
along with statement of income, Ex.D31 is Computerized
copy of sale deed, Ex.D32 is Computerized copy of
mortgage deed, Ex.D33 is Computerized copy of
mortgage deed, Ex.D34 is Computerized copy of sale
deed, Ex.D35 is Bank account statement, Ex.D36 is
Bank account statement, Ex.D37 is True copy of
complainant, Ex.D38 is True copy of police statement,
Ex.D39 is Police endorsement, Ex.D40 is Police
endorsement, Ex.D41 is Copy of complaint to the bank,
Ex.D42 is Empty cover through which court summons
said to have been sent, Ex.D43 is Copy of legal notice,
Ex.D44 is Postal acknowledgment, Ex.D45 is Copy of
reply notice, Ex.D46 is Copy of summons, Ex.D47 is
Empty postal cover, Ex.D48 is Gas receipt, Ex.D49 to 52
Bank account statements.
26. On perusal of the cross-examination of DW1 he
deposed that till the date of issue of notice he was
residing in the house of complainant. He admits that the
notice is issued even to his village address and his
residential address at Bangalore. The cheque in question
is belongs to his account and he admits his signature.
20 Crl.Appeal No.25296/2025
He admits that many other cases are pending regarding
issuance of cheque by him. However according to him
they are all false cases. He do not remember what was
balance in bank account when Ex.P2 the endorsement
was issued by the bank, he deposed that it may be true
that on that day the balance available was Rs.7,934/-. In
respect of his complaint the police have given him NCR.
He can examine the police officer Rama Reddy.
27. With this factual matrix, firstly the court has to
appreciate whether there are materials to ascertain the
existence of legally enforceable debt. At the outset, the
Court has to appreciate whether Section 138 of The Act
is made out. When the cheque is produced before the
Court and when it came to be dishonored for funds
insufficient or for any other reason and when the legal
notice was issued within the statutory period then the
presumption available under Sections 118 & 139 of The
Act is made out in favour of the complainant. The
provisions of Section 118 of The Act are separated from
the general rule applicable to the contracts and it
provides presumption in favour of the party. The said
presumptions are that: unless the contrary is proved the
Court has to presume that the consideration had passed
21 Crl.Appeal No.25296/2025
between the parties as enumerated under Section 118 of
NI Act. Likewise, unless the contrary is established
Section 139 of the NI Act clearly establishes that the
holder of the cheque had received the same towards
discharge of the legally enforceable debt either towards
whole or partial liability. The said presumptions have to
be read conjointly in order to ascertain whether the
ingredients are made out. Further, the said
presumptions are rebuttable and the same has to be
appreciated with the factual aspects of the case. The
impugned cheque at Ex.P1 was drawn during the period
of its validity and was accordingly presented to the bank
and after its dishonor the notice was also issued and
later on after completing all the statutory bound
obligations the complaint came to be filed. This clearly
indicates that initial presumption is drawn in favour of
the complainant. It is also relevant to note that the said
presumption is rebuttable one and as such the defence
of the accused has to be appreciated in order to
ascertain whether the presumption which is drawn
initially in favour of the complainant has been
successfully rebutted.
22 Crl.Appeal No.25296/2025
28. The law is well settled that the accused need
not enter the witness box to rebut initial presumption. At
the same time, the defense which is taken up by the
accused is to be appreciated so as to ascertain whether
the same was probable or not. In the case on hand it is
the specific defence of accused that he borrowed only
Rs.1 lakh from the complainant and the complainant
herself deposited additional amount of Rs.77,000/-on
14.03.2020 and Rs.50,000/- on 21.03.2020 stating that
her husband will grab the amount from her. Hence she
deposited said amount. Hence, it is only Rs.2,27,000/- is
paid by complainant to him. Out of the said amount he
already paid Rs.70,000/- through his bank account and
through his relatives by name Smt. Pankaja and
Mr.M.N.Rajanna. He paid Rs.10,000/- on 30.03.2020
and paid Rs.40,000/- through Pankaja. He transferred
Rs.20,000/- through his relative Pankaja on 23.07.2020
and on 04.08.2020. Hence, according to this accused he
already paid Rs.70,000/- to the complainant.
29. When the accused has taken said defence the
burden is on him to prove the said fact by placing cogent
and convincing evidence. First and foremost the
contention of the accused that he borrowed only Rs.1
23 Crl.Appeal No.25296/2025
lakh and additional amount of Rs.1,27,000/- is paid by
complainant only is not established by any cogent
evidence. The accused has produced bulky documents in
respect of his business and in respect of his purchase.
However this accused himself in his chief examination
admits that so as to purchase property he was in need of
money and he borrowed loan and also admits that he
requested complainant also for the assistance of money.
However according to him he requested only Rs.1 lakh.
But the said fact is not proved by any evidence. As
admitted by this accused himself in the police station the
father of the complainant has stated him that his
transaction is different and his daughter transaction is
different. When that being the case the accused has to
establish that it is only Rs.2,27,000/- is paid by
complainant to him and he already repaid Rs.70,000/-
to the complainant.
30. The pass book marked at Ex.D10 shows
transfer of amount to Juniper Networks. The bank
statement marked at Ex.D35 is pertains to the account
of this accused and the same shows the transfer of some
amount like Rs.40,000/- and 10,000/- on 30.03.2020 to
his account. However from whose account said amount
24 Crl.Appeal No.25296/2025
was transferred is not established. Similarly on
21.03.2020 some UPI transaction in respect of
Rs.50,000/- is referred. The accused who is produced
the said account extract has to establish that the said
transfer represents to the complainant. However nothing
on record is placed to establish the said fact.
31. Similarly, on perusal of the account statement
dated 05.03.2019 a sum of Rs.2,88,688/- is reflected to
the name of Suresh Reddy. However as admitted by the
accused himself he vacated the premises of father of
complainant on 08.09.2020. Though the accused taken
defence that he paid a sum of Rs.5 lakhs to the father of
complainant through cheque No.693417, the account
statement dated 05.03.2019 of this accused shown the
transfer of said amount to the Suresh Reddy but as
admitted accused himself the transaction between
accused and complainant is different and transaction
between complainant’s father and accused is different.
The account extract of Rajanna is marked at Ex.D36 but
the same does not reflect the transfer of amount to the
account of complainant.
25 Crl.Appeal No.25296/2025
32. The document marked at Ex.D37 shows that
this accused has lodged complaint as against the house
owner Suresh Reddy alleging that they have tried to
assault him and imposed life threat and abused him by
filthy words. The said complaint also reflects borrowing
of amount of Rs.2,27,000/- from the daughter of
Sureshreddy. However the said complaint cannot be
called as document for having borrowed such loan from
complainant. It is self serving statement and nothing
else. On the basis of said document it is not possible to
hold that the complainant has paid Rs.2,27,000/-.
Statement of Smt. Kavitha wife of Suresh Reddy shows
that she has given statement and NCR was given stating
that the matter is civil in nature.
33. It is necessary to note that according to
complainant the cheque in question was issued in
respect of the loan amount borrowed by the accused.
Where as the accused taken defence that when he lodged
complaint as against the parents of complainant alleging
assault on 07.08.2020 at that time the police constable
by name Rama Reddy was sent to sort the matter and
the matter was compromised and statement was taken
and at that time as it was stated that the transaction of
26 Crl.Appeal No.25296/2025
complainant and her father are different hence, as said
by Rama Reddy and as he forced and also as
complainant demanded he issued signed blank cheque.
In respect of said defence it is to be noted that this
accused has not placed any evidence to show that the
cheque in question was given to complainant in police
station in view of her demand and also in view of the
pressure by the said police officer Rama Reddy. It is vital
to note that Ex.P1 cheque is dated 13.08.2020. The
accused if he had really owed only a sum of
Rs.2,27,000/- then the accused could have mentioned
the very same amount in the said cheque and would
have given the same to complainant. Nothing prevented
this accused to mention the very same amount in the
cheque.
34. That apart the best witness in the
circumstances is said police constable Rama Reddy who
according to accused who sorted the difference between
him and complainant and her parent.
35. It is also necessary to note that this accused
has given complaint before police on 07-08-2020. The
police have given NCR on 08-08-2020. According to
27 Crl.Appeal No.25296/2025
accused he issued the Ex.P1 cheque to complainant on
08-08-2020. If he had given cheque in the police station
then why the same is not mentioned in the NCR is not
explained by accused. This accused given request before
his banker on 14.08.2020. Then the question arises why
this accused who has given cheque on 08-08-2020 kept
quite till 14-08-2020. If the cheque was given as security
to the complainant then nothing prevented this accused
to give request letter immediately before his banker to
stop payment. There is no explanation by the accused in
this regard.
36. The accused as an after thought to evade the
payment to complainant has given complaint as per
Ex.D37 by mentioning that he owed Rs.2,27,000/-
without mentioning that he already paid Rs.70,000/- to
complainant and the alleged balance payable to
complainant was only Rs.1,57,000/-. If the accused has
repaid Rs.70,000/- through various persons and also by
him then why he has not mentined the same in his
complaint at Ex.D37 is remained unexplained. Even in
the complaint given before his banker this accused has
not mentioned the alleged repayment of Rs.70,000/-
28 Crl.Appeal No.25296/2025
37. The complainant presented the Ex.P1 Cheque
before her banker on 14.08.2020. It is vital to note that
the said cheque returned for reason payment stopped by
the drawer. Even the endorsement that payment stopped
by the drawer also attracts the offence punishable
u/sec.138 of NI Act. The burden is on the accused to
establish that on the date of presentation of said cheque
he was having sufficient balance in his account so as to
honor the said cheque. The accused himself admits that
on the date of issuance of endorsement by the banker as
per Ex.P2 the available amount in his account was Rs.
7934/-. The same shows that there was no sufficient
balance in his account to honour the Ex.P1 cheque.
Hence the complaint given before police and request
letter given by accused before his banker is only an after
thought documents so as to evade payment which is
legally payable by him to complainant. Accordingly,
though this accused taken defence that he borrowed only
Rs.2,27,000/- from the complainant and he already paid
Rs.70,000/- there is nothing on record.
38. The accused also taken defence that the
complainant had no financial capacity to lend amount.
However it is vital to note that on perusal of the reply
29 Crl.Appeal No.25296/2025
notice this accused has not taken such a defence
regarding the financial capacity of the complainant at the
earliest possible opportunity. The complainant deposed
that she was working and getting salary. The said
evidence of complainant remained unchallenged.
39. In his chief examination affidavit this accused
has taken defence that before the police the father of the
complainant stated the transaction between accused and
father of the complainant is different and the transaction
between complainant and accused is different. Whereas
in the reply notice this accused stated that in respect of
loan of Rs.2,27,000/- borrowed by him he paid
Rs.70.000/- and it is after deducting Rs.1,57,000/-
father of the complainant not returned the remaining
amount of lease. The accused is not sure about the
defence taken by him. The accused not placed any
material to rebutt the presumption available in favour of
the complainant.Absolutely there is nothing on record to
establish that Ex.P1 was issued by the accused to the
complainant at the instance of police constable
Ramareddy in police station for the purpose of security.
30 Crl.Appeal No.25296/2025
40. Accused taken defence that the complainant
herself has filled the cheque recitals and misused the
cheque. However once again it is vital to note that the
accused except taking said contention not placed any
material to establish that the complainant has misused
the cheque.
41. The court is well aware of the cardinal principle
of law, that the burden will be upon the prosecution to
prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. However, a
duty is also casted upon the Accused to successfully
rebut the presumption which is raised by the
complainant. Admittedly, the complainant has
discharged the initial burden as already discussed supra
and as such the onus will be shifted upon the accused to
rebut the same.
42. As discussed supra, the accused himself admits
that, Ex.P.1 cheque is pertains to his account and the
signature on said cheque is his signature. Hence, there
is presumption in favour of complainant. The accused
utterly failed to prove the defence of issuing of said
cheque as a security at the instance of police constable
Ramareddy in Byeappanahalli police station to the
complainant in respect of loan of Rs 1,57,000/- and
31 Crl.Appeal No.25296/2025
thereafter by filling the cheque presented the same
before bank and misused the cheque which was issued
as security. With respect to the presumption and also
the defense of misuse of cheque taken up by the
Appellant the court has relied upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2018)8 SCC 165
(Kishan Rao V/s Shankaregowda) wherein it has been
held thus:
Section 139 of the Act, 1881 provides for
drawing the presumption in favour of holder.
Section 139 is to the following effect:
“139.Presumption in favour of holder.-It shall
be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that
the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the
nature referred to in section 138 for the
discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or
other liability.”
18. This Court in Kumar Exports vs. Sharma
Carpets, 2009 (2) SCC 513, had considered the
provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act as
Referring to 139, this Section well Evidence Court
laid following in paragraphs 14, 15, 18 and 19:
Section 139 of the Act provides that it shall
be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that
the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the
nature referred to in Section 138 for the
discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or
other liability.
15. Presumptions are devices by use of which
the courts are enabled and entitled to pronounce
on an issue notwithstanding that there is no
evidence or insufficient evidence. Under the
Evidence Act all presumptions must come under
one or the other class of the three classes
mentioned in the Act, namely, (1) “may presume”
32 Crl.Appeal No.25296/2025
(rebuttable), (2) “shall presume” (rebuttable), and
(3) “conclusive presumptions” (irrebuttable). The
term “presumption” is used to designate an
inference, affirmative or disaffirmative of the
existence of a fact, conveniently called the
“presumed fact” drawn by a judicial tribunal, by a
process of probable reasoning from some matter
of fact, either judicially noticed or admitted or
established by legal evidence to the satisfaction
of the tribunal. Presumption literally means
“taking as true without examination or proof”.
18. Applying the definition of the word
“proved” in Section 3 of the Evidence Act to the
provisions of Sections 118 and 139 of the Act, it
becomes evident that in a trial under Section 138
of the Act a presumption will have to be made
that every negotiable instrument was made or
drawn for consideration and that it was executed
for discharge of debt or liability once the
execution of negotiable instrument is either
proved or admitted. As soon as the complainant
discharges the burden to prove that the
instrument, say a note, was executed by the
accused, the rules of presumptions under
Sections 118 and 139 of the Act help him shift
the burden on the accused. The presumptions will
live, exist and survive and shall end only when
the contrary is proved by the accused, that is, the
cheque was not issued for consideration and in
discharge of any debt or liability. A presumption
is not in itself evidence, but only makes a prima
facie case for a party for whose benefit it exists.
19. The use of the phrase “until the contrary
is proved” in Section 118 of the Act and use of
the words “unless the contrary is proved” in
Section 139 of the Act read with definitions of
“may presume” and “shall presume” as given in
Section 4 of the Evidence Act, makes it at once
clear that presumptions to be raised under both
the provisions are rebuttable. When a
presumption is rebuttable, it only points out that
the party on whom lies the duty of going forward
33 Crl.Appeal No.25296/2025
with evidence, on the fact presumed and when
that party has produced evidence fairly and
reasonably tending to show that the real fact is
not as presumed, the purpose of the presumption
is over.”
19. This Court held that the accused may
adduce evidence to rebut the presumption, but
mere denial regarding existence of debt shall not
serve purpose. Following was held in paragraph
20:
“20….The accused may adduce direct
evidence to prove that the note in question was
not supported by consideration and that there
was no debt or liability to be discharged by him.
However, the court need not insist in every case
that the accused should disprove the non-
existence of consideration and debt by leading
direct evidence because the existence of negative
evidence is neither possible nor contemplated. At
the same time, it is clear that bare denial of the
passing of the consideration and existence of
debt, apparently would not serve the purpose of
the accused. Something which is probable has to
be brought on record for getting the burden of
proof shifted to the complainant. To disprove the
presumptions, the accused should bring on record
such facts and circumstances, upon consideration
of which, the court may either believe that the
consideration and debt did not exist or their non-
existence was so probable that a prudent man
would under the circumstances of the case, act
upon the plea that they did not exist…”
20. In the present case, the trial court as well
as the Appellate Court having found that cheque
contained the signatures of the accused and it
was given to the appellant to present in the Bank
of the presumption under Section 139 was rightly
raised which was not rebutted by the accused.
The accused had not led any evidence to rebut
the aforesaid presumption. The accused even did
the not come in the presumption. The accused
even did not come in the witness box to support
34 Crl.Appeal No.25296/2025
his case. In the reply to the notice which was
given by the appellant the accused took the
defence that the cheque was stolen by the
appellant. The said defence was rejected by the
trial court after considering the evidence on
regard with regard to which no contrary view has
also been expressed by the High Court.
21. Another judgment which needs to be
looked into is Rangappa vs. Sri Mohan, 2010 (11)
SCC 441. A three Judge Bench of this Court had
occasion to examine the presumption under
Section 139 of the Act, 1881. This Court in the
aforesaid case has held that in the event the
accused is able to raise a probable defence which
creates doubt with regard to the existence of a
debt or liability, the presumption may fail.
Following was laid down in paragraphs 26 and 27:
“26. In light of these extracts, we are in
agreement with the respondent claimant that the
presumption mandated by Section 139 of the Act
does indeed include the existence of a legally
enforceable debt or liability. To that extent, the
impugned observations in Krishna Janardhan
Bhat, (2008) 4 SCC 54, may not be correct.
However, this does not in any way cast doubt on
the correctness of the decision in that case since
it was based on the specific facts and
circumstances therein. As noted in the citations,
this is of course in the nature of a rebuttable
presumption and it is open to the accused to raise
a defence wherein the existence of a legally
enforceable debt or liability can be contested.
However, there can be no doubt that there is an
initial presumption which favours the
complainant.
27. Section 139 of the Act is an example of a
reverse onus clause that has been included in
furtherance of the legislative objective of
improving the credibility of negotiable
instruments. While Section 138 of the Act
specifies a strong criminal remedy in relation to
the dishonour of cheques, the rebuttable
35 Crl.Appeal No.25296/2025presumption under Section 139 is a device to
prevent undue delay in the course of litigation.
However, it must be remembered that the offence
made punishable by Section 138 can be better
described as a regulatory offence since the
bouncing of a cheque is largely in the17 nature of
a civil wrong whose impact is usually confined to
the private parties involved in commercial
transactions. In such a scenario, the test of
proportionality should guide the construction and
interpretation of reverse onus clauses and the
defendant-accused cannot be expected to
discharge an unduly high standard or proof.”
22. No evidence was led by the accused. The
defence taken in the reply to the notice that
cheque was stolen having been rejected by the
two courts below, we do not see any basis for the
High court coming to the conclusion that the
accused has been successful in creating doubt in
the mind of the Court with regard to the
existence of the debt or liability. How the
presumption under Section 139 can be rebutted
on the evidence of PW.1, himself has not been
explained by the High court.
43. The sum and substance is that there is a
presumption in favour of holder of cheque in due course.
The accused failed to prove contrary. Lastly the Court
has also appreciated the statement of Accused recorded
under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. regarding the evidence under
Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., is not a bald formality. In fact, it is an
opportunity rendered to the Accused to explain the
incriminating materials against him. However, the
Accused has only denied but he failed to rebut the
36 Crl.Appeal No.25296/2025
presumption available in favor of complainant. Whether
this Accused has taken any legal action as against the
complainant in respect of misusing of his cheque is not
forthcoming. Under the circumstances, the burden of
proof is successfully established by the complainant and
as such, with respect to the existence of legally
enforceable debt and its presumption, the Court has
relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court reported
in (2019) 10 SCC 287 (Uttam Ram V. Devinder Singh
Hudan and another) wherein it has been held as;
18. We find that the approach of the learned Trial
Court and that of the High Court is perverse;
irrational as well as suffers from material illegality
and irregularity, which cannot be sustained in
complaint filed under Section 138 of the Act.
19. A negotiable instrument including a cheque
carries presumption of consideration in terms of
Section 118(a) and under Section 139 of the Act.
Sections 118(a) and 139 read as under:
“118. Presumptions as to negotiable instruments.-
Until the contrary is proved, the following
presumptions shall be made:–
(a) of consideration–that every negotiable
instrument was made or drawn for consideration,
and that every such instrument, when it has been
accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was
accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for
consideration;….
xxx xxx xxx
37 Crl.Appeal No.25296/2025
139. Presumption in favour of holder.–It shall be
presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the
holder of a cheque received the cheque of the
nature referred to in section 138 for the
discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other
liability.”
20. The Trial Court and the High Court proceeded
as if, the appellant is to prove a debt before civil
court wherein, the plaintiff is required to prove
his claim on the basis of evidence to be laid in
support of his claim for the recovery of the
amount due. A dishonour of cheque carries a
statutory presumption of consideration. The
holder of cheque in due course is required to
prove that the cheque was issued by the accused
and that when the same presented, it was not
honoured. Since there is a statutory presumption
of consideration, the burden is on the accused to
rebut the presumption that the cheque was issued
not for any debt or other liability.
21. There is the mandate of presumption of
consideration in terms of the provisions of the
Act. The onus shifts to the accused on proof of
issuance of cheque to rebut the presumption that
the cheque was issued not for discharge of any
debt or liability in terms of Section 138 of the Act
which reads as under:
“138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc.,
of funds in the account. — Where any cheque
drawn by a person on an account maintained by
him with a banker for payment of any amount of
money to another person from out of that account
for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt
or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid,
either because of the amount of money standing
to the credit of that 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 that bank, such person shall
38 Crl.Appeal No.25296/2025be deemed to have committed an offence and
shall….”
22. In Kumar Exports, it was held that mere
denial of existence of debt will not serve any
purpose but accused may adduce evidence to
rebut the presumption. This Court held as under:
“20. The accused in a trial under Section 138 of
the Act has two options. He can either show that
consideration and debt did not exist or that under
the particular circumstances of the case the non-
existence of consideration and debt is so probable
that a prudent man ought to suppose that no
consideration and debt existed. To rebut the
statutory presumptions an accused is not
expected to prove his defence beyond reasonable
doubt as is expected of the complainant in a
criminal trial. The accused may adduce direct
evidence to prove that the note in question was
not supported by consideration and that there
was no debt or liability to be discharged by him.
However, the court need not insist in every case
that the accused should disprove the non-
existence of consideration and debt by leading
direct evidence because the existence of negative
evidence is neither possible nor contemplated. At
the same time, it is clear that bare denial of the
passing of the consideration and existence of
debt, apparently would not serve the purpose of
the accused. Something which is probable has to
be brought on record for getting the burden of
proof shifted to the complainant. To disprove the
presumptions, the accused should bring on record
such facts and circumstances, upon consideration
of which, the court may either believe that the
consideration and debt did not exist or their non-
existence was so probable that a prudent man
would under the circumstances of the case, act
upon the plea that they did not exist. Apart from
adducing direct evidence to prove that the note in
question was not supported by consideration or
39 Crl.Appeal No.25296/2025that he had not incurred any debt or liability, the
accused may also rely upon circumstantial
evidence and if the circumstances so relied upon
are compelling, the burden may likewise shift
again on to the complainant. The accused may
also rely upon presumptions of fact, for instance,
those mentioned in Section 114 of the Evidence
Act to rebut the presumptions arising under
Sections 118 and 139 of the Act.” (emphasis
supplied)
23. In a judgment reported as Kishan Rao v.
Shankargouda6, this Court referring to Kumar
Exports and Rangappa returned the following
findings:
“22. Another judgment which needs to be looked
into is Rangappa v. Sri Mohan [Rangappa v. Sri
Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441 : (2010) 4 SCC (Civ)
477 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 184] . A three-Judge
Bench of this Court had occasion to examine the
presumption under Section 139 of the 1881 Act.
This Court in the aforesaid case has held that in
the event the accused is able to raise a probable
defence which creates doubt with regard to the
existence of a debt or liability, the presumption
may fail. Following was laid down in paras 26 and
27: (SCC pp. 453-54) “26. In light of these
extracts, we are in agreement with the respondent
claimant that the presumption mandated by
Section 139 of the Act does indeed include the
existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability.
To that extent, the impugned observations in
Krishna Janardhan Bhat [Krishna Janardhan Bhat
v. Dattatraya G. Hegde, (2008) 4 SCC 54 : (2008) 2
SCC (Cri) 166], may not be correct. However, this
does not in any way cast doubt on the correctness
of the decision in that case since it was based on
the specific facts and circumstances therein. As
noted in the citations, this is of course in the
nature of a rebuttable presumption and it is open
to the accused to raise a defence wherein the
40 Crl.Appeal No.25296/2025existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability
can be contested. However, there can be no doubt
that there is an initial presumption which favours
the complainant.
27. Section 139 of the Act is an example of a
reverse onus clause that has been included in
furtherance of the legislative objective of
improving the credibility of negotiable
instruments. While Section 138 of the Act
specifies a strong criminal remedy in relation to
the dishonour of cheques, the rebuttable
presumption under Section 139 is a device to
prevent undue delay in the course of litigation.
However, it must be remembered that the offence
made punishable by Section 138 can be better
described as a regulatory offence since the
bouncing of a cheque is largely in the nature of a
civil wrong whose impact is usually confined to
the private parties involved in commercial
transactions. In such a scenario, the test of
proportionality should guide the construction and
interpretation of reverse onus clauses and the
defendant-accused cannot be expected to
discharge an unduly high standard of proof.”
24. In a judgment reported as Bir Singh v. Mukesh
Kumar7, this Court held that presumption under
Section 139 of the Act is a presumption of law.
The Court held as under:
“20. Section 139 introduces an exception to the
general rule as to the burden of proof and shifts
the onus on the accused. The presumption under
Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is a
presumption of law, as distinguished from
presumption of facts. Presumptions are rules of
evidence and do not conflict with the
presumption of innocence, which requires the
prosecution to prove the case against the accused
beyond reasonable doubt. The obligation on the
prosecution may be discharged with the help of
41 Crl.Appeal No.25296/2025presumptions of law and presumptions of fact
unless the accused adduces evidence showing the
reasonable possibility of the non-existence of the
presumed fact as held in Hiten P. Dalal [Hiten P.
Dalal v. Bratindranath Banerjee, (2001) 6 SCC 16 :
2001 SCC (Cri) 960] .
xxx xxx xxx
33. A meaningful reading of the provisions of the
Negotiable Instruments Act including, in
particular, Sections 20, 87 and 139, makes it
amply clear that a person who signs a cheque and
makes it over to the payee remains liable unless
he adduces evidence to rebut the presumption
that the cheque had been issued for payment of a
debt or in discharge of a liability. It is immaterial
that the cheque may have been filled in by any
person other than the drawer, if the cheque is
duly signed by the drawer. If the cheque is
otherwise valid, the penal provisions of Section
138 would be attracted.
xxx xxx xxx
36. 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 the Negotiable Instruments Act, in
the absence of any cogent evidence to show that
the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt.”
25. In other judgment reported as Rohitbhai
Jivanlal Patel v. State of Gujarat and Another8
this Court held as under:
“18. So far the question of existence of basic
ingredients for drawing of presumption under
Sections 118 and 139 the NI Act is concerned,
apparent it is that the accused- appellant could
not deny his signature on the cheques in question
that had been drawn in favour of the complainant
42 Crl.Appeal No.25296/2025on a bank account maintained by the accused for
a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs each. The said cheques were
presented to the Bank concerned within the
period of their validity and were returned unpaid
for the reason of either the balance being
insufficient or the account being closed. All the
basic ingredients of Section 138 as also of
Sections 118 and 139 are apparent on the face of
the record. The Trial Court had also consciously
taken note of these facts and had drawn the
requisite presumption. Therefore, it is required to
be presumed that the cheques in question were
drawn for consideration and the holder of the
cheques i.e., the complainant received the same
in discharge of an existing debt. The onus,
therefore, shifts on the accused-appellant to
establish a probable defence so as to rebut such a
presumption.”
xxx xxx xxx
20. On the aspects relating to preponderance of
probabilities, the accused has to bring on record
such facts and such circumstances which may
lead the Court to conclude either that the
consideration did not exist or that its
nonexistence was so probable that a prudent man
would, under the circumstances of the case, act
upon the plea that the consideration did not
exist. This Court has, time and again, emphasized
that though there may not be sufficient negative
evidence which could be brought on record by the
accused to discharge his burden, yet mere denial
would not fulfil the requirements of rebuttal as 8
AIR 2019 SC 1876 envisaged under Section 118
and 139 of the NI Act…..
xxx xxx xxx
32. The result of discussion in the foregoing
paragraphs is that the major considerations on
which the Trial Court chose to proceed clearly
43 Crl.Appeal No.25296/2025
show its fundamental error of approach where,
even after drawing the presumption, it had
proceeded as if the complainant was to prove his
case beyond reasonable doubt. Such being the
fundamental flaw on the part of the Trial Court,
the High Court cannot be said to have acted
illegally or having exceeded its jurisdiction in
reversing the judgment of acquittal. As noticed
hereinabove, in the present matter, the High
Court has conscientiously and carefully taken
into consideration the views of the Trial Court
and after examining the evidence on record as a
whole, found that the findings of the Trial Court
are vitiated by perversity. Hence, interference by
the High Court was inevitable; rather had to be
made for just and proper decision of the matter.”
44. To sum up it is noticed that the Accused has
admitted the impugned cheque at Ex.P1 and also its
issuance is categorically admitted by him, whereas it is
contended that complainant collected cheque in the
police statition and the cheque was issued at the
instance of Police constable by name Ramareddy but no
evidence is placed on record by accused in this regard.
There is absolutely no explanation that why he had kept
quiet if he had really given the cheque to complainant
only for the purpose of security without lodging any
complaint before jurisdictional police about misuse of
cheque by the complainant. In the entire defence of the
accused there is no explanation in this regard. The same
shows that the accused has not taken defence which is
certain and which is probable and as such the Accused
44 Crl.Appeal No.25296/2025
has failed to rebut the presumption. For all above
reasons, I hold that, the complainant has duly proved
that the cheque at Ex. P1 is issued towards discharge of
lawful liability. Once this conclusion is reached and
when there are no technical defects in the complainant
and all the conditions of section 138 of NI Act are
complied it follows that the learned magistrate came to
the correct conclusion in holding that the accused has
committed the offence under section 138 of NI Act. The
total value of the cheque is Rs.9 lakhs but under section
138 of NI Act, the Learned magistrate can impose
sentence of upto twice the cheque amount and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the
learned magistrate was perfectly justified in imposing the
fine of Rs.13,50,000/- and therefore, the impugned
judgment and sentence does not call for interference.
Accordingly, none of the grounds raised in the appeal
memorandum, deserve acceptance. I have already held
supra for the detailed reasons discussed that, the
learned magistrate came to the correct conclusion in
convicting the appellant and sentencing him as afore
stated. Accordingly, for all these reasons, I answered
Point Nos.1 and 2 in the Negative.
45 Crl.Appeal No.25296/2025
45. Point No.3: In view of the findings on the
above points the appeal filed by the Appellant deserves to
be dismissed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the
following:-
ORDER
The appeal filed by the Appellant
u/sec.374 (3) of Cr.P.C., r/w sec.415(3) of
BNSS is hereby dismissed with costs.
The Judgment of conviction passed by
the Learned XXXIII ACJM Bengaluru, in
CC.No.54676/2020, dtd. 10.07.2025, is
hereby confirmed.
Send back the records with a copy of
this Judgment to the Trial Court.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, corrected, signed and
then pronounced by me, in the open court on this the 18 th day of
June 2026.)
Digitally signed by
ANITHA
ANITHA NANJANAGUDU
NANJANAGUDU PARASHIVAMURTHY
PARASHIVAMURTHY
Date: 2026.07.06
15:08:39 +0530[Smt. Anitha N.P]
LXXIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru. (CCH-74).
