Bangalore District Court
Bettaswamy N N vs Padmavathi on 9 July, 2026
KABC030493602022
Presented on : 20-06-2022
Registered on : 20-06-2022
Decided on : 09-07-2026
Duration : 4 years, 0 months, 19 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.19205/2022
Dated: the 09th day of July, 2026
Complainant :- Sri.Bettaswamy N.N.,
S/o.Late.Narasegowda,
Aged about 46 Years,
R/at No.12, 1st Main Road,
1st Cross, S.V.G.Nagar,
Mudalapalya, Bangalore-560 072.
Mob: 9743723952
(By Sri.N.N.Jayaramu., Advocate.)
-V/s -
Accused :- Smt.Padmavathi,
D/o.Late.Puttegowda,
Aged about 45 years,
R/at No.22, 4th 'C' Main Road,
Chandana Layout, Srigandadakavalu,
Sunkadakatte, Bangalore-560 091.
(By Sri.Chandrappa K.N., Advocate)
2
C.C.No.19205/2022
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 09.07.2026.
Digitally signed
ASHA by ASHA K S
Date:
KS 2026.07.13
11:52:52 +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 case of the complainant in brief is as under:-
“The accused is known to the complainant from several
years and they are family friends. The accused was doing
hotel business with Sri.Ramu at Rajajinagar. The accused
had approached the complainant for financial assistance of
Rs.4 lakhs for her business in the first week of January
2020. The complainant also agreed and paid Rs.2 lakhs in
the first week of January 2020 and Rs.2 lakhs in the first
week of February 2020 by way of cash. The accused has
assured to repay the said amount within one year along
with interest @ rate of 2% per month. On the same day, the
3C.C.No.19205/2022
accused has executed loan agreement and also on demand
promissory note in favour of complainant.
3. Thereafter when the complainant has demanded for
repayment of said amount, the accused had issued cheque
bearing No.867478, dated 19.01.2022 for a sum of
Rs.4,00,000/- drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar Branch,
Bengaluru. Thereafter the accused has taken back his loan
agreement and promissory note. The accused has requested
not to present cheque for realization and she will pay
amount through online. The accused has not keep up her
promise, hence the complainant has presented the said
cheque through his banker Janatha Seva Co-op. Bank,
Moodalapalya Branch. The said cheque has been returned
for the reason “Funds Insufficient” on 16.02.2022.
4. Thereafter the complainant has got issued legal
notice to the accused on 23.02.2022 and same has been
served on 24.02.2022. Thereafter the accused has not
chosen to issue reply notice and not paid amount.
5. After filing of complaint, cognizance was taken.
In pursuance of summons, accused appeared before the
Court and she had enlarged on bail. Substance of
accusation has been framed and contents of its read over to
the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and she claimed to
be tried.
4
C.C.No.19205/2022
6. In order to prove his case complainant has
examined himself as PW.1 and got marked 10 documents
at Ex.P.1 to 10 on behalf of the complainant. After closure of
complainant evidence, accused has been examined as under
section 313 of Cr.P.C and opted to lead evidence. Accused
has been examined as DW-1.
7. Thereafter arguments heard and perused the
Record.
8. The following points arise for my determination: –
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?
9. 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
is known to the complainant since many years. The accused
had approached the complainant and borrowed amount of
Rs.4,00,000/- from the complainant in the year 2020. To
discharge the said liability, the accused had issued cheque.
5
C.C.No.19205/2022
Ex.P.1. On presentation said cheque has been returned for
the reason “Funds Insufficient”. After service of notice the
accused has not chosen to issue reply notice.
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
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
6
C.C.No.19205/2022
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.
16. To prove his case, the complainant has examined
himself as PW-1 and produced 10 documents and same has
been marked as Ex.P.1 to P.10. 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. Postal acknowledgment as per Ex.P.5.
Complainant’s Bank statement as per Ex.P.6. Four RTC
Extracts as per Ex.P.7 to P.10.
17. In the cross-examination of PW-1, he has deposed
that he is working as collection executive and getting salary
of Rs.30,000/- per month. He is residing in leased house.
His wife is working in private school and getting salary of
Rs.20000/- per month. Prior to this transaction also, there
was a transaction between the parties. He had landed
property at Nembi Nayakanahalli. He does not know about
7
C.C.No.19205/2022
the income of accused. The signature and handwriting of
Ex.P.1 are in different ink and different handwriting. He
does not know the date of agreement because after lapse of
time, he had thrown the said agreement. On 8.03.2022 only
Rs.7633/- was in his account. There is no recital in the
notice with regard to rate of interest. He denied the
suggestion that he had collected cheque from the accused in
previous transaction and misused the same.
18. The accused has denied the case of complainant
and to prove her case she has examined as DW-1. She has
deposed that she knows the complainant. The complainant
was oftenly visiting to the hotel for finance, where she was
working. She was borrowing Rs.5000/-, Rs.10000/- from
the complainant and she used to return the same on daily
basis. She is doing hotel business on road side and there is
no separate hotel. She had borrowed Rs.10000/- from the
complainant in the year 2016 and issued blank cheque for
security purpose. Though she has returned amount but the
complainant has not returned her cheque.
19. In the cross-examination of DW-1, she has
deposed that she and her brother were doing small hotel
business on road side and they were sharing profit equally.
She had borrowed Rs.13000/- from the complainant and
repaid the same through online. She had no necessity to
borrow Rs.4 lakhs and she had no such capacity to borrow
8
C.C.No.19205/2022
huge amount. There is no document to show that she had
repaid amount to the complainant. She denied other
suggestions.
20. 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.4,00,000/- and to discharge the same, the accused had
issued Ex.P.1 cheque. Here there is no dispute in signature
and issuance of cheque but the accused has denied the
transaction. The complainant has produced documents and
same has been marked as Ex.P.1 to 10. Ex.P.1 cheque,
Ex.P.2 memo, Ex.P.3 is a legal notice, Ex.P.4 Postal receipt
Postal acknowledgment as per Ex.P.5. Bank Statement as
per Ex.P.6. Four RTC extracts Ex.P.7 to P.10. Admittedly
cheque and signature is belongs to accused and the accused
has not disputed the issuance of cheque. 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”. Here the question
9
C.C.No.19205/2022
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 entered into witness box and cross-examined
the PW-1 also.
21. The burden is on the accused to prove that how
her cheque had been to the hands of the complainant. The
accused has explained that how her cheque had been to
the hands of the complainant ie.., she had issued cheque for
security purpose to the complainant in the previous
transaction. As per accused she had borrowed only
Rs.10000/- in the year 2016 and issued cheque for security
purpose. It is also contended that she had returned said
amount but the complainant has not returned her cheque.
If that is so, option available to the accused was to demand
her cheque by issuing notice or by giving intimation to the
bank for stop payment. Here no such efforts from the
accused.
22. The accused has taken two contrary contentions.
As discussed above in the chief-examination of DW-1, she
has deposed that she had borrowed amount of Rs.10000/-
from the complainant in the year 2016 and she has
10
C.C.No.19205/2022
returned the same within three months. During the cross-
examination of DW-1, she has deposed that she had
borrowed Rs.13,000/- from the complainant and she had
repaid the same through online only. If that is so, there was
no hurdle for the accused to produce her bank statement to
show that she had repaid Rs.10000/- or Rs.13,000/-. In the
evidence ie., chief-examination, accused has deposed that
she had borrowed only Rs.10000/- in the year 2016 and she
had repaid the said amount within three months. In the
cross-examination of DW-1, she has deposed that from
16.03.2021 to 22.12.2021, she had repaid amount of
Rs.13,300/-. It shows that the accused is not sure about
the alleged repayment and she has not clarified that which
version is correct. If really she had borrowed only
Rs.10000/- or 13,000/-, then she would have deposed the
same in her evidence but she has deposed different
evidence. With regard to repayment also she has deposed
contrary and she has not explained why this different
version.
23. The accused has deposed that in the year 2016
she had issued cheque for security purpose. The
complainant has presented cheque for realization on
16.02.2022. It shows that there was a gap of six years and
there was a time to the accused to recollect her cheque or to
give intimation to the bank. Here no such efforts from the
accused and it is not an act of ordinary prudent man.
11
C.C.No.19205/2022
Because no person will simply sit for six years by issuing
blank cheque. It probablizes that the accused has borrowed
amount and not repaid the same and for that purpose only
she had issued cheque, otherwise there was no necessity to
the accused to wait for six years.
24. The accused has taken another contention that
there was no necessity for the accused to borrow huge
amount. The accused only deposed in her evidence that she
is doing small hotel business on road side and she was in
need of money. She is also deposed that she was oftenly
borrowing amount from the complainant for her business.
She has also deposed that the complainant was lending
money to the Chikkamma hotel at Seshadripuram, where
accused was working. It shows that the complainant had
financial capacity to lend amount and accused had
borrowed amount to start her hotel business. Because as
per accused she was working in another hotel and later she
has started her business. To start any business, obviously
amount is required and question of necessity does not arise.
Every one has their own requirements or necessities. All
these aspects clearly shows that the accused was in need of
money and borrowed the same from the complainant. Non
production of bank statement by the accused itself shows
that, only to hide the transaction between the parties she
has not produced her bank statement.
12
C.C.No.19205/2022
25. Advocate for accused has contended while cross-
examining PW-1 that the complainant only filled the
cheques, 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 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. Moreover the complainant has
clearly deposed that the accused only filled cheque and
issued. Moreover the accused has not chosen to take
assistance from the expert to prove that writing found in
cheque is not belongs to accused.
26. As per accused, the complainant has misused her
cheque. If really the complainant has misused the cheque of
accused, then she has an option to proceed against the
complainant before appropriate authority or forum. This
case has been filed in the year 2022 and now it is 2026 but
till today no such effort from accused side. The accused has
not explained that why she is silent, if her contention is
genuine. There is no answer from accused side.
13
C.C.No.19205/2022
27. The accused has taken another contention that
no notice has been served to her and for that reason she
has not issued reply notice. Ex.P.3 is notice and in that
address of accused shown as No.22, 4 th C N Chandana
Layout, Srigandadkaval, Sunkadakatte with phone number.
As per Ex.P.5 notice has been served on 24.02.2022. The
accused has denied the service of notice and in her evidence
she has deposed her address as No.153, KHB colony,
Basaveshwaranagar, Bengaluru. During the cross-
examination of DW-1 also she has admits that she has not
produced any document to show that she is resident of
Basaveshwarnagar. As per accused she is residing in the
Basaveshwaranagar from 2 ½ years but notice has been
issued in the year 2022. Moreover the accused has not
produced any document to show that where she was
residing in the year 2022. She has also not produced any
document to show that she is residing in the address shown
in her evidence. It shows that the address shown in the
notice is correct and complainant has sent notice with
correct address. As per Sec.27 of General Clauses Act any
notice sent with correct address has to be consider as
deemed service. Hence it is considered as deemed service.
The accused has not explained any reason for non issuance
of reply notice.
28. Advocate for accused has contended that, the
complainant has no financial capacity to lend such a huge
14
C.C.No.19205/2022
amount. In the evidence the complainant has clearly
deposed that he is doing collection executive and getting
salary of Rs.30000/- per month and his wife also earning.
Ex.P.6 bank statement of complainant shows that he was
getting salary and there was a amount in his account.
Ex.P.7 to P.10 are RTC extracts pertaining Sy.No.13/2,
Sy.No.40/138, Sy.No.91/24, Sy.No.82/4 shows that there
are landed properties in the name of father of complainant.
It shows that the complainant being a son of Narasegowda,
he is getting agricultural income also. The accused has
deposed that complainant was lending finance to
Chikkamma hotel from many years. It shows that the
complainant has capacity to pay said amount. Moreover the
amount involved in this case is Rs.4 lakhs only. As stated
above the complainant and his wife both are working and as
per accused complainant was lending money to others also.
All these aspects show that the complainant has financial
capacity to lend amount.
29. Though the accused has contended that the
complainant has misused her cheque but till today no
notice has been issued to the complainant and no complaint
has been lodged against the complainant. The accused has
not issued intimation letter to the bank for stop payment. If
really accused has not borrowed any amount from the
complainant then definitely she would have disclosed the
15
C.C.No.19205/2022
name of accused in the intimation and she would have given
to the bank. Here no such effort from the accused.
30. 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 previous transaction, nothing has been suggested.
As discussed above the accused has not placed any
documents to show that there was a loan transaction
between them, prior to this transaction and she had issued
cheque for security purpose.
31. In this case the accused has not exercised
options available to her. Though she has alleged that
complainant has misused her cheque but no complaint
lodged against him. All these aspects clearly shows that
there was a transaction between the parties and accused
has issued cheque to discharge her liability but only to
escape from her liability, she has denied the case of
complainant and taken different versions but fails to prove
her contention.
32. 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.
16
C.C.No.19205/2022
33. The accused person has fails to prove her
defence. The reason or explanation given by the accused
with regard to how her 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.
34. 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…”
34. 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,
139 and 146 of Negotiable Instruments Act. An essential
17
C.C.No.19205/2022
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.
35. 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 she had issued
cheque for security purpose in the previous transaction and
18
C.C.No.19205/2022
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 she would
have lodged complaint against the complainant. Here no
such complaint by the accused. The accused has not taken
her contention at the earliest stage by issuing reply notice.
It shows that there was a transaction between the parties
and only to escape from her liability she has taken that
contention but not proved her contention. Hence ratio held
in above authority is applicable to case on hand.
36. 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 accused has
not issued reply notice and not proved her defence. Till
today the accused has not lodged any complaint against the
19
C.C.No.19205/2022
complainant for alleged misuse of her cheque. Hence
accused cannot take defence with regard to financial in
capacity of the complainant or cash transaction. The ratio
held in above authority is supports the case of complainant.
38. 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.”
20
C.C.No.19205/2022
37. Such being the case it is for the accused to rebut
the presumption under Sec.139 of Negotiable Instruments
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 she has not issued cheques 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 her cheque.
She has not tried to take back her cheque. Silence of
accused shows that she is admitting transaction and for
that reason only, she has not tried to take back her cheque.
Only to escape from her liability, she has denied the case of
complainant.
38. Advocate for complainant argued that transaction
was in the year 2020 and till today the complainant has not
received any benefit from the accused. Due to delay in
proceedings also, the complainant has suffered a lot. In the
authority reported in Crl. Revision Petition No.996/2016 of
M/s.Banavathi and Company Vs.Mahaeer Electro Mech Pvt
Ltd and another. In that Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka
held that as per Section 80 of N.I.Act When no rate of
interest is specified in the instrument, interest on the
amount due thereon shall, notwithstanding any agreement
relating to interest between any parties to the instrument,
21
C.C.No.19205/2022
be calculated at the rate of eighteen per centum per annum,
from the date at which the same ought to have been paid by
the party charged, until tender or realization of the amount
due thereon, or until such date after the institution of a suit
to recover such amount as the Court directs. All discussed
above transaction was in the year 2020 and now it is in the
year 2026 and the complainant has suffered a lot of
financial issue due to delay. If complainant would have
invested and deposited in any bank or business, she would
have get benefit. Hence the accused is liable to pay interest
@ rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of complaint
to till realization.
39. 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 “Funds Insufficient”.
22
C.C.No.19205/2022
40. The complainant has proved that accused had
issued cheque towards discharge of her legally recoverable
debt or liability. There is no proper explanation from the
accused that why she has not tried to take back her
cheque. There is no effort from the accused to take steps
against the complainant for alleged misuse of her 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 her. Though the accused
has taken contention that she had returned amount
borrowed by her but not produced any bank statement. If
really the accused has returned amount through account
then there was no hurdle for her to produce bank
statement. The accused has deposed contrary to her own
defence. All these aspects show that there was a transaction
between the parties and to discharge her 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 her liability. The complainant has
23
C.C.No.19205/2022
proved the initial burden and accused has not proved her
defence and not rebutted the presumption. The evidence of
PW.1 coupled with documentary evidence corroborates with
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.
41. 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.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only)
along with interest @ rate of 18% per annum
from the date of filing of complaint to till
realization till payment of amount. In default
to pay the fine, accused shall undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of six months.
Further, acting under Sec.357(1)(b) of
Cr.P.C., on recovery of sum of Rs.4,00,000/-
(Rupees Four Lakhs only along with interest
24C.C.No.19205/2022
@ rate of 18% per annum only, Rs.
3,95,000/-along with interest 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.
(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 09th day of July-2026)
Digitally signed
ASHA by ASHA K S
Date:
KS 2026.07.13
11:53:24 +0530(Smt.Asha K.S,)
XXIII ACJM,Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
1) List of Witnesses examined for complainant:-
PW.1 : Sri.Bettaswamy
2) List of documents marked on behalf of complainant: –
Ex.P.1 : cheque.
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of accused,
Ex.P.2 : Bank Memo,
Ex.P.3 : Legal Notice,
Ex.P.4 : Receipt.
Ex.P.5 : Postal Acknowledgment.
Ex.P.6 : Bank Statement.
Ex.P.7 to P.10 : Four RTC's
3) List of witness examined on behalf of the Accused :-
DW-1 : Smt.Padmavathi.
4) List of documents marked on behalf of the Accused:-
: Nil :
ASHA Digitally signed
by ASHA K S
Date: 2026.07.13
KS 11:53:34 +0530
(Smt.Asha K.S,)
XXIII ACJM, Bengaluru.
25
C.C.No.19205/2022
26
C.C.No.19205/2022
