Bangalore District Court
B Kumara vs Mallesha on 13 July, 2026
KABC030505022024
Presented on : 11-09-2024
Registered on : 11-09-2024
Decided on : 13-07-2026
Duration : 1 years, 10 months, 2 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XXIII ACJM, BENGALURU
-: Present :-
Smt.Asha K.S., B.A.L, L.L.B.,
XXIII ACJM, BENGALURU,
C.C. No.29458/2024
Dated this the 13th day of July, 2026.
Complainant :- Sri.B.Kumara
S/o.Byrappa,
Aged about 42 years,
R/at Chikkeluru Village,
Ramohalli Post,
Tavarekere Hobli,
Bengaluru-560074.
(By Sri.Ganapathi S.Shastri, Advocate)
-V/s -
Accused: Sri.Mallesha,
S/o.Chikkegowda,
Aged about 42 years,
Vinayakanagara Village,
Ramohalli Post, Kengeri Hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluk,
Bengaluru-560074.
(By Sri.S.Lakshminarayana., Advocate)
2
C.C.No.29458/2024
Offences complained of U/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Plea of the Accused Not Pleaded guilty.
Final Order Accused is Convicted
Date of Order 13.07.2026.
Digitally signed
ASHA by ASHA K S
Date:
KS 2026.07.14
11:03:05 +0530
(Smt.Asha K.S,)
XXIII ACJM, Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
The complainant has filed the present complaint under
Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the accused for the
commission of an offense punishable under section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The complainant and accused are known to each
other. The accused had approached for a hand loan of Rs.6
lakhs to meet the business and family necessities in the
first week of November 2022. The complainant also agreed
and paid said amount to the accused by way of cash on
23.11.2022. The accused has assured to repay the said
amount within twelve months from the date of receipt of the
said amount.
3. It is further submitted that, the accused has fails
to keep up his promise and when complainant has
demanded to repayment,the accused had issued cheque
bearing No.000018, dated 08.07.2024 for Rs.6,00,000/-
3
C.C.No.29458/2024
drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank, Gandhi Bazar branch,
Basavanagudi, Bengaluru. On presentation of said cheque
by the complainant through his banker UCO Bank, Kengeri
branch, Bengaluru same has been returned as “Drawers
Signature Differs” on 10.07.2024.
4. Thereafter the complainant has issued legal
notice to the accused on 27.07.2024 and same has been
served on 31.07.2024. Thereafter accused has not replied
the notice nor paid the cheque amount.
5. After filing of complaint, cognizance was taken.
In pursuance of summons, accused appeared before the
Court and he had enlarged on bail. Substance of accusation
has been framed and contents of its read over to the
accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and he claimed to be
tried.
6. In order to prove his case complainant has
examined himself as PW.1 and got marked 07 documents
at Ex.P.1 to 07 on behalf of the complainant. After closure
of complainant evidence, accused has examined U/s.313 of
Cr.PC and after granting time also not chosen to lead
evidence.
7. Thereafter arguments heard and perused the
record.
8. The following points arise for my determination: –
4
C.C.No.29458/2024
1) Whether the complainant has
made out all the ingredients of Sec.138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act to prove the
guilt of accused?
2) What Order?
09. On hearing the arguments and on perusal written
arguments and the materials placed on record, my answers
to: –
Point No.1:- In the Affirmative
Point No.2:- As per final order
for the following:-
REASONS
10. It is the case of complainant is that the accused and
complainant are known to each other and friends. The
accused had borrowed amount of Rs.6,00,000/- for his
commitments and to discharge said liability, accused had
issued cheque. On presentation said cheque has been
returned for the reasons “Drawers Signature Differs “. After
issuance of notice also the accused has not issued reply
notice. Thereafter, the complainant has filed this complaint.
11. To attract Sec.138 of NI Act it is necessary to
fulfill the ingredients of said provision. I have carefully
perused the section 138 of of N.I.Act, it has three
ingredients which are as follows:
1. That there is a Legally enforceable debt,
2. That the cheque was drawn from the account of
bank for discharge in whole or any part of any
5C.C.No.29458/2024
debt or other liability which pre-supposes a
legally enforceable debt.
3. That the cheque so issued had been returned
due to insufficiency of funds.
12. Keeping in view the ingredients of Sec.138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act. Now I proceed to reproduce the
Sec.139 and 118(a) of N.I.Act here itself.
13. Sec.139 of N.I.Act reads as follows “Presumes in
favor of holder, it shall be presumed unless the contrary is
proved, that the holder of cheque received the cheque, of the
nature referred to in Sec.138, for the discharge, in whole or
in part or any debt or other liability”.
14. Sec.118(a) reads as follows “Presumption as to
Negotiable Instrument Act until the contrary is proved, the
following presumption 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 endorse, negotiate or transferred, was
accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for
consideration”.
15. Keeping in view of the ingredients and provision
of Sec.139 and 118(a) of N.I.Act, now I proceed to discuss
the documents in the case. I am of the opinion that I need
not repeat the entire case of the complaint once again since
I have already stated the same at the beginning of this
judgment.
6
C.C.No.29458/2024
16. To prove his case, the complainant has examined
himself as PW-1 and produced 07 documents and same has
been marked as Ex.P.1 to P.07. The cheque as per Ex.P.1
and signature thereon as per Ex.P.1(a). Bank memo as per
Ex.P.2. Legal Notice as per Ex.P.3. Postal Receipt as per
Ex.P.4 . Document given by the Postal Dept as per Ex.P.5.
Application U/s.65-B of Indian Evidence Act as per Ex.P.6
and Reply as per Ex.P.7.
17. In the cross-examination of PW-1, he has deposed
that he is running chicken shop at Koluru, Kundapura and
getting income of Rs.7 – 8 lakhs per year. He has not
produced any document to show his income. He denied the
suggestion that he is doing chit business and he only signed
in the cheque and misused the same.
18. The accused has denied the case of complainant
and to prove his case he has not chosen to enter into
witness box. The accused has chosen to cross-examine PW-
1 to prove his defence and he has also issued reply notice.
In the cross-examination of PW-1, except suggesting that
the complainant has no source of income to lend such a
huge amount, nothing has been elicited. In the reply notice
accused has taken contention that there was a transaction
between the complainant’s wife, complainant and accused
and they are known to each other. As per accused, wife of
complainant had borrowed loan from the accused many
7
C.C.No.29458/2024
times and she is due of Rs.1 lakh to the accused. It is
further contended that the complainant has stolen the
cheque of accused and misused the same.
19. Advocate for complainant has argued that
complainant has proved his case and accused has fails to
rebut the presumption. Till today accused has not lodged
any complaint against the complainant. Advocate for
accused has argued that there was no transaction between
the parties and the complainant has not proved his case. As
per complainant accused had borrowed amount of
Rs.6,00,000/- and to discharge the same, the accused had
issued Ex.P.1 cheque.
20. The complainant has produced documents and
same has been marked as Ex.P.1 to 7. Ex.P.1 cheque,
Ex.P.2 memo, Ex.P.3 is a legal notice, Ex.P.4 Postal receipt.
Track consignment as per Ex.P.5. Certificate U/s.65-B of
Indian Evidence Act as per Ex.P.6 and Reply notice as per
Ex.P.7. Admittedly cheque is belongs to accused and the
accused has disputed the issuance of cheque and signature.
Complaint has been filed within time. cheque is in the
hands of the complainant. As per Sec.139 of N.I.Act
“Presumes in favor of holder, it shall be presumed unless
the contrary is proved, that the holder of cheque received
the cheque, of the nature referred to in Sec.138, for the
discharge, in whole or in part or any debt or other liability”.
8
C.C.No.29458/2024
Here the question arise for consideration is whether the
accused has rebutted the presumption or not and is there
legally recoverable debt or liability. The accused has an
option to rebut the presumption by way of eliciting truth
from PW-1 in the cross-examination, by way of entering into
witness box and he can utilize materials available on record.
In this case the accused has not entered into witness box
but cross-examined the PW-1.
21. The burden is on the accused to prove that how
his cheque had been to the hands of the complainant. The
accused has explained that how his cheque had been to the
hands of the complainant ie.., the complainant has stolen
his cheque. If that is so, option available to the accused was
to demand his cheque by issuing notice or by giving
intimation to the bank for stop payment or by lodging
complaint before the police station or court. Here no such
efforts from the accused.
22. As discussed above in the reply notice the accused
has contended that the wife of complainant had borrowed
amount from the accused and she is due of Rs.1 lakh.
Except saying this no material has been placed before the
court. No witness has been examined to prove that there
was a transaction between the accused and wife of
complainant. The another contention of accused is that the
complainant has stolen his cheque. As discussed above no
9
C.C.No.29458/2024
complaint lodged against the complainant for alleged act of
theft or alleged misuse of cheque. There is no explanation
from the accused that what prevented him from taking steps
against the complainant.
23. As per Ex.P.3 notice has been issued on
27.07.2024 and same has been served to the accused. The
accused might have received the message from bank also
with regard to dishonour of cheque. In such circumstances
the only option available to the accused is to take steps
against the complainant, but till today no such complaint
against the complainant. There is no explanation from the
accused for his silence. It is not an act of prudent man. As
per accused wife of complainant is due of Rs.1 lakh, in such
circumstances accused has to take steps against the wife of
complainant also but there is no efforts from accused side.
24. Advocate for accused has contended while cross-
examining PW-1 that the complainant only filled and signed
the cheque, hence it is not valid. During the cross-
examination of PW-1, he denied that aspect. Here the
question is whether complainant can fill the cheque or not.
In the authority in Sunita Dubey (Smt.) Vs. Hukum Singh
Ahirwar. In that Hon’ble Apex Court held that blank cheque
can be filled up by holder thereof. Which will be valid
instrument in eye of law. The complainant has right to get
benefit U/s.20 of Act. As per Section 20 of N.I.Act inchoate
10
C.C.No.29458/2024
instruments are also valid and legally enforceable. In the
case of a signed blank cheque, the drawer gives authority to
the drawee to fill up the a great liability. Hence accused
cannot contend that the cheque is not valid.
25. The accused has denied his signature also in the
cheque. Ex.P.2 bank endorsement also shows that drawers
signature differs. Thereafter also the accused has not
chosen to sent the document for handwriting expert. More
particularly accused has not chosen to enter into witness
box and not given an opportunity to the complainant for
cross-examination. If really accused has not issued cheque
in favour of the complainant, then there was no hurdle for
him to enter into witness box and depose the same.
26. As per accused, the complainant has misused his
cheque. If really the complainant has misused the cheque of
accused, then he has an option to proceed against the
complainant before appropriate authority or forum. This
case has been filed in the year 2024 and now it is 2026 but
till today no such effort from accused side. The accused has
further contended that the wife of complainant has
borrowed amount from him and she is due but not given
any supportive documents and not explained that why he is
silent, if his contention is genuine. There is no answer from
accused side.
11
C.C.No.29458/2024
27. Advocate for accused has contended that, the
complainant has no financial capacity to lend such a huge
amount. In the evidence the complainant has clearly
deposed that he is running chicken shop and getting income
of Rs.7 to 8 lakhs per annum. It shows that the complainant
has capacity to pay said amount. Moreover the amount
involved in this case is Rs.6 lakhs only. As stated above the
complainant is doing chicken business and getting income.
All these aspects show that the complainant has financial
capacity to lend amount.
28. As discussed above, the advocate for accused has
cross-examined the PW-1 but nothing has been elicited to
prove the defence of the accused. Except suggesting with
regard to financial capacity of the complainant nothing has
been suggested. As discussed above the accused has not
placed any documents to show that what steps he has taken
for alleged misuse of his cheque. The accused has issued
reply notice on 29.08.2024 and till today he has not taken
any steps against the complainant. He has not chosen to
enter into witness box also. Hence adverse inference has to
be drawn against the accused.
29. In this case the accused has not exercised
options available to him. Though he has alleged that
complainant has misused his cheque but no complaint
lodged against him. All these aspects clearly shows that
12
C.C.No.29458/2024
there was a transaction between the parties and accused
has issued cheque to discharge his liability but only to
escape from his liability, he has denied the case of
complainant and taken different versions but fails to prove
his contention.
30. As per Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act court
may presume that bill of exchange was accepted for good
consideration. Issuance of cheque is proved. Hence
presumption can be drawn. Therefore, it probabalizes that
the transactions alleged in the complaint is genuine.
31. The accused person has fails to prove his
defence. The reason or explanation given by the accused
with regard to how his cheque had been to the hands of the
complainant is not at all acceptable one. Hence there is no
reasons to disbelieve the case of complainant. Hence
presumption can be drawn in favour of complainant.
32. Advocate for accused has produced authority
reported in Crl. Appeal No.2402/2014 K.Subramani
Vs.Damodhar Naidu. In that Hon’ble Apex Court held that
complaint must prove his source of income to avail
presumption. In the case on hand also the accused has
taken contention regarding financial capacity. But the
complainant has deposed that he is running chicken shop
and getting income. The accused has not produced any
document to show that what steps he has taken for alleged
13
C.C.No.29458/2024
misuse of his cheque. Till today no complaint is lodged
against the complainant. It shows that there was a
transaction between the parties and the complainant has
financial capacity. Hence the issue regarding financial
capacity does not arise. Moreover facts and circumstances
of both the cases are not one and the same. Hence ratio
held in above authority is not supports to the contention of
accused.
33. Advocate for accused has produced authority
reported in Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs.Dattatreya G.Hegde
in (2008) 4 SCC 54. Advocate for accused argued that as per
said authority there should be document with regard to
alleged transaction. In this case there is no agreement,
promissory note with regard to said transaction. Hence
court cannot draw presumption U/s.139 of N.I.Act. It is true
that there should be documents with regard to alleged
transaction. At the same time accused has to explain that
how his cheque had been to the hands of the accused. Here
there is no such explanation from the accused and no
person will simply sit, if someone has stolen his cheque.
The facts and circumstances of above authority and case on
hand are entirely different. In the above said authority there
is a dispute with regard to transaction and accused has
taken contention that his power of attorney holder has
misused his signed cheque. Here advocate for accused also
taken contention that complainant has stolen the cheque
14
C.C.No.29458/2024
belongs to the accused. If that is so, the option available to
the accused was to lodge complaint against the
complainant. As discussed above there is no such steps by
the accused. It shows that there was a transaction between
the parties. Moreover accused has not chosen to enter into
witness box to prove his defence. In the above authority also
Hon’ble Apex Court held that accused shall enter into
witness box, when there is a specific defence or he has to
prove through available materials. Here accused has not
proved his defence, hence he cannot take shelter of above
said authority.
34. Advocate for accused has produced another
Judgment in Crl. Revision Petition No.135/2011 in Mini
Mohnan Vs.K.S.Kochumon and another. In that Hon’ble
High Court of Kerala held that when there is a doubt
regarding transaction and accused has raised probable
defence, then court has to consider. Perused the said
Judgment and noticed that in that there is an evidence to
show that there was a transaction between wife of
complainant and husband of accused. There is no clarity in
pleadings also. Here there is no such doubt. Except
suggesting to the PW-1 in the cross-examination that there
was a transaction between the wife of complainant and
accused, he has not explained about that transaction. He
has not placed any material in support of his contention. If
really transaction was between the wife of complainant and
15
C.C.No.29458/2024
accused then there was no hurdle for the accused to enter
into the witness box and deposed the same. Here there is no
such evidence. Moreover facts and circumstances of both
the cases are not one and the same. Hence ratio held in
above authority is not supports to the contention of
accused.
35. Advocate for accused has produced another
Judgment in Crl. Revision Petition No.172/2008 in
A.Vishwanath Pai Vs.Vivekananda S.Bhat. In that Hon’ble
High Court of Karnataka held that there should be legally
recoverable debt or liability. The accused has a
constitutional right to maintain silence. Standard of proof
on the part of accused and that of prosecution in a criminal
case is different. Here there is a legally recoverable debt
and the accused has not raised any probable defence and
not proved his defence also. There should be some material
or evidence or admission from PW-1 to believe the version of
accused. Here the accused has not elicited anything from
PW-1 in the cross-examination. There is not supportive
material to believe the version of accused. Except suggesting
to the PW-1 in the cross-examination that there was a
transaction between the wife of complainant and accused,
he has not explained about that transaction. He has not
placed any material in support of his contention. If really
transaction was between the wife of complainant and
16
C.C.No.29458/2024
accused then there was no hurdle for the accused to enter
into the witness box and deposed the same. Here there is no
such evidence. Moreover facts and circumstances of both
the cases are not one and the same. Hence ratio held in
above authority is not supports to the contention of
accused.
36. Regarding the burden of the accused to rebut the
presumptions in N.I Act the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel Vs State Of Gujarat in Crl.A.No.508
OF 2019 held:
“16.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 non-existence 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 fulfill the requirements of rebuttal as
envisaged under Section 118 and 139 of the NI Act…”
37. As discussed above the accused has fails to rebut
the presumption. Under the criminal jurisprudence, the
prosecution is required to establish the guilt of the accused
beyond all reasonable doubt. However, the proceeding
U/sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is quasi-criminal
in nature. In these proceedings proof beyond reasonable
doubt is subject to presumptions envisaged under sec.118,
17
C.C.No.29458/2024
139 and 146 of Negotiable Instruments Act. An essential
ingredient of Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is that
cheque in question must have been issued towards a legally
or liability. Sec.118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act
envisage certain presumptions. Under Sec.118 a
presumption shall be raised regarding consideration, date,
acceptance, transfer, endorsements and regarding the
holder in due course of Negotiable Instruments. Even under
Sec.139 a rebuttal presumption shall be raised that the
cheque in question was issued regarding discharge of a
legally enforceable debt. These presumptions are mandatory
presumptions that are required to be raised in case of
Negotiable Instruments. These presumptions are not
conclusive presumptions, but are rebuttable. The accused
has fails to rebut the presumption.
38. In the authority reported in Crl Appeal
No.348/2011 in Smt.Jayalakshmamma Vs.Shasikala. In
that case the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka held that if
accused has taken contention that complainant has
misused his cheque, then there should be complaint before
the police or any authority or intimation to the bank. If
accused has not exercised these options then, his
contention cannot be considered with regard to missing of
cheque or alleged misuse of cheque. In the case on hand
also the accused has taken contention that the complainant
18
C.C.No.29458/2024
has stolen his cheque and complainant has misused the
same. but no notice has been issued to the complainant
and no complaint is lodged. If really contention of accused is
genuine, definitely he would have lodged complaint against
the complainant. Here no such complaint by the accused.
It shows that there was a transaction between the parties
and only to escape from his liability he has taken that
contention but not proved his contention. Hence ratio held
in above authority is applicable to case on hand.
39. But in the recent decision of Hon’ble Apex Court
in the authority reported in Crl. Appeal 1755/2010 in
Sanjabij Tari Vs.Kishore S. Borcar case Hon’ble Apex Court
held that only on the ground that transaction is by way of
cash and not shown in the IT returns, complaint cannot be
dismissed. It is further held that if accused not lodged any
complaint against the complainant after dishonour of
cheque by alleging that the cheque was not to be encashed.
Consequently, the defence of financial in capacity and
transaction by way of cash by the accused is on after
thought. In the case on hand also after dishonour of
cheque, the complainant has issued notice and same has
been served to the accused but thereafter also not proved
his defence. Till today the accused has not lodged any
complaint against the complainant for alleged misuse of his
cheque. Hence accused cannot take defence with regard to
19
C.C.No.29458/2024
financial in capacity of the complainant or cash transaction.
The ratio held in above authority is supports the case of
complainant.
40. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Rangappa v. Sri Mohan,
(2010) 11 SCC 441 Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:-
“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 : (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 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.
28. In the absence of compelling justifications, reverse
onus clauses usually impose an evidentiary burden
and not a persuasive 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. As clarified in the citations, the
accused can rely on the materials submitted by the
complainant in order to raise such a defence and it is
conceivable that in some cases the accused may not
need to adduce evidence of his/her own.”
41. Such being the case it is for the accused to rebut
the presumption under Sec.139 of Negotiable Instruments
20
C.C.No.29458/2024
Act and to show that the cheque in question was not issued
towards any legally enforceable debt or liability and accused
has to prove the same not by mere possible explanation, but
by cogent evidence. In this case the accused has fails to
prove that he has not issued cheque towards legally
enforceable debt. There is no dispute with regard to
signatures. Till today accused has not filed any complaint
against the complainant for alleged misuse of his cheque.
She has not tried to take back his cheque. Silence of
accused shows that she is admitting transaction and for
that reason only, he has not tried to take back her cheque.
Only to escape from his liability, he has denied the case of
complainant.
42. Therefore, when there is evidence of complainant
regarding the issuance of cheque and it was dishonour on
presentation and when there is no evidence on the side of
the accused to rebut the presumption available under
section 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act, I am of
the view that complainant has successfully established that
cheque have been issued by the accused towards the
discharge of legal liability and was dishonoured on its
presentation for “Drawers Signature Differs”.
21
C.C.No.29458/2024
43. The complainant has proved that accused had issued
cheque towards discharge of his legally recoverable debt or
liability. There is no proper explanation from the accused
that why he has not tried to take back his cheque. There is
no effort from the accused to take steps against the
complainant for alleged misuse of his cheque. If there was
no transaction between the parties, then no ordinary
prudent man will simply sit by issuing cheque. After
receiving of notice also the accused had an option to take
steps against the complainant but the accused has not
exercised any of option available to him. Though the
accused has taken contention that the complainant has
stolen his cheque but not proved his defence. All these
aspects show that there was a transaction between the
parties and to discharge his liability only, accused had
issued Ex.P.1. The accused has fails to prove that there is
no legally recoverable debt or liability. Hence, in view of the
above discussion, this court is of the opinion that the
complainant has proved his case. On careful perusal of
materials on record I am of the opinion that there is a
legally recoverable debt or liability. All these aspects show
that accused had issued cheques to the complainant
towards discharge of his liability. The complainant has
proved the initial burden and accused has not proved his
defence and not rebutted the presumption. The evidence of
PW.1 coupled with documentary evidence corroborates with
22
C.C.No.29458/2024
each other. During the cross-examination of PW-1 also
nothing has been elicited. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case the version of complainant
appears to be true. The ingredients required to fulfill
Sec.138 of NI Act also proved. Hence, I hold that there are
materials available on record to conclude that accused has
committed an offence U/Sec.138 of NI Act, hence I
answered Point no.1 in the Affirmative.
44. Point No.2:- In view of the aforesaid reasons, I
proceed to pass the following :-
-: ORDER :-
By invoking the power conferred under
section 278(2) of B.N.S.S.,The accused is
found guilty for the offence punishable under
section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Accused is sentenced to pay a fine of
Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only). In
default to pay the fine, accused shall
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
six months.
Further, acting under Sec.395 (1) (b) of
BNSS., on recovery of sum of Rs.6,00,000/-
(Rupees Six Lakhs only) Rs. 5,95,000/- shall
be paid to the complainant as compensation
and Rs.5,000/- shall be remitted to the state
exchequer.
23
C.C.No.29458/2024
Supply free copy of this order to the
accused forthwith.
(Dictated to stenographer directly on my computer, after
clerical additions by him, script revised, corrected and pronounced
by me in the Open Court on this the 13th day of July-2026)
ASHA Digitally signed
by ASHA K S
Date: 2026.07.14
KS 11:03:43 +0530(Smt.Asha K.S,)
XXIII ACJM,Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
1) List of Witnesses examined for complainant:-
PW.1 : Sri.Kumara.B.
2) List of documents marked on behalf of complainant: –
Ex.P.1 : Cheque.
Ex.P.1(a) : Signatures of accused,
Ex.P.2 : Bank Memo,
Ex.P.3 : Legal Notice,
Ex.P.4 : Postal Receipt.
Ex.P.5 : Document issued by the Postal
Department.
Ex.P.6 : Certificate U/s.65-B of I.E.A.
Ex.P.7 : Reply.
3) List of witness examined on behalf of the Accused :-
: Nil :
4) List of documents marked on behalf of the Accused:-
: Nil : Digitally signed
ASHA by ASHA K S
Date:
KS 2026.07.14
11:03:55 +0530
(Smt.Asha K.S,)
XXIII ACJM, Bengaluru.
24
C.C.No.29458/2024
25
C.C.No.29458/2024
26
C.C.No.29458/2024
13.07.2026 (Judgment pronounced in the
open Court vide separate order.)
-: ORDER :-
By invoking the power
conferred under section 278(2) of
B.N.S.S.,The accused is found
guilty for the offence punishable
under section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act.
Accused is sentenced to pay
a fine of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees
Six Lakhs only). In default to pay
the fine, accused shall undergo
simple imprisonment for a period
of six months.
27
C.C.No.29458/2024
Further, acting under
Sec.395 (1) (b) of BNSS., on
recovery of sum of Rs.6,00,000/-
(Rupees Six Lakhs only) Rs.
5,95,000/- shall be paid to the
complainant as compensation and
Rs.5,000/- shall be remitted to the
state exchequer.
Supply free copy of this
order to the accused forthwith.
(Smt.Asha K.S,)
XXIII ACJM, Bengaluru.
28
C.C.No.29458/2024
