Bangalore District Court
Chetan R vs Jvg Aquatics on 9 April, 2026
1
C.C.No.36932/2022
KABC030868852022
Presented on : 28-11-2022
Registered on : 28-11-2022
Decided on : 09-04-2026
Duration : 3 years, 4 months, 11 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XXII ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
PRESENT: SRI.JAI SHANKAR.J,
B.A.L., LL.B
XXII ADDL.C.J.M., BENGALURU.
DATED: THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2026
JUDGMENT U/s.278(2) of BNSS -2023
(OLD CORRESPONDENCE NO. 255(2) OF CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
C.C.NO. : 36932/2022
COMPLAINANT : Mr. Chetan. R,
S/o. K. Rangaswamy,
Aged about 28 years,
R/at No.202, Sri Priaya,
Laksh Royal Manor,
2
C.C.No.36932/2022
Bharat Nagar 2nd Phase,
Bengaluru - 560 091.
(By Sri. Rajendra Pattanashetti, Adv.,)
V/s.
ACCUSED : 1. M/s. J.V.G. Aquatics,
Rep. By its Proprietor,
Situated at No. 216,
Ground Floor,
Nagarabhavi Main Road,
Bengaluru - 560 072.
2. Smt. V. Jamuna,
W/o. Venkatesh. G
Aged about 57 years,
Proprietor of
M/s. J.V.G. Aquatics,
Situated at No. 216,
Ground Floor,
Nagarabhavi Main Road,
Bengaluru - 560 072.
And also residing at :
Flat No.005,
Parvi Golden Nest Apartment,
Mallathahalli Lake Road,
Mallathahalli,
Bengaluru - 560 056.
3
C.C.No.36932/2022
3) Mr. Adithya.V,
S/o. Venkatesh.G,
Aged about 33 years,
Authorized Signatory of
M/s. J.V.G. Aquatics,
Situated at No. 216,
Ground Floor,
Nagarabhavi Main Road,
Bengaluru - 560 072.
Also residing at:
Flat No.005, Parvi Golden Nest,
Mallathahalli Lake Road,
Mallathahalli,
Bengaluru - 560 056.
(By Sri. C. Nagaraj., Adv., )
Offence complained of : U/s.138 of N.I.Act
Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Accused no.3 is Convicted
Accused no.2 is Acquitted
Date of order : 09.04.2026
JUDGMENT
This is a private complaint filed by the complainant
against the accused persons for the offence punishable
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
4
C.C.No.36932/2022
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is as
under:
It is contended that, the complainant and the accused
no.2 & 3 came in acquittance through business as both are
doing a business in the same locality. The accused no.2 & 3
are in the business of Aqua Accessories Aquarium and other
pet animal food products. The accused no.2 & 3 approached
the complainant for a hand loan to develop their business
and accordingly, the complainant transferred Rs.5 lakhs to
the account of the accused on 14.12.2020. The accused
no.2 & 3 assured to return back the amount within one and
half year and inspite of they assuring to return the amount,
they failed to return it and therefore, on repeated demand
and request, the accused persons have issued the cheque
bearing No.167740, dt:04.08.2022 for Rs.5 lakhs, drawn on
5C.C.No.36932/2022
Axis Bank, Nagarabhavi Branch, Bengaluru, assuring that,
on its presentation, it would be honored. Believing the
representation, when the complainant presented the cheque
through his banker ie., Axis Bank, Chandra Layout branch,
it dishonored with shara as “Funds Insufficient”
dt:10.08.2022. Thereby, the complainant got issued the
demand notice dt:24.08.2022 through RPAD, which served
on the accused persons. Despite which, they have not
chosen to comply it, which has given cause of action to file
the present complaint.
3. After filing of the complaint, this court has taken
cognizance of the offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I.Act.
Sworn statement of the complainant was recorded. Being
satisfied that, there are prima-facie materials to proceed
against accused no.2 & 3, summons were issued. After
6
C.C.No.36932/2022
appearance of the accused no.2 & 3, they were enlarged on
bail and plea was recorded. The accused no.2 & 3 have not
pleaded guilty, but submitted that, they would go for the
trial.
4. From the basis of the pleadings, the following
points that arise for my consideration are as follows:-
1. Whether the complainant proves that, the
accused no.2 & 3 issued cheque bearing
No.167740, dt:04.08.2022 for Rs.5 lakhs,
drawn on Axis Bank, Nagarabhavi Branch,
Bengaluru, towards discharge of their
liability which was returned unpaid on
presentation for the reason “Funds
Insufficient” and despite of knowledge of the
notice, they have not paid the said cheque
amount and thereby, committed an offence
punishable U/s.138 of N.I.Act?
2. What order?
7
C.C.No.36932/2022
5. The sworn statement and the documents marked
at Ex.P.1 to P.15 by the complainant is being treated as the
complainant evidence as per the decision of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in Indian Bank Association Vs. Union of India
and Ors., reported in 2010 (5) SCC 590. The statement of
the accused no.2 & 3 as required U/s.313 of Cr.P.C is also
being recorded, wherein they have denied the incriminating
evidence appeared against them and submitted that, they
have the evidence. However, they have not chosen to adduce
their side evidence, but Ex.D.1 to D.1(h) is being marked
through the confrontation of the PW.1.
6. Heard from both side. Perused the materials
available on record.
7. My answer to the aforesaid points are as under:-
8
C.C.No.36932/2022
Point No.1 :- Partly in the Affirmative
Point No.2 :- As per the final order, for the following:-
REASONS
8. Point No.1:- The complainant has filed this
complaint alleging that, the accused no.2 & 3 have
committed an offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I.Act. He
pleads and asserts that, the accused no.2 & 3 in discharge
of their liability, have issued the disputed cheque at Ex.P.1,
which is being dishonored with shara as “Funds
Insufficient”. Thereby, he got issued the legal notice served
on the accused persons. Despite which, they have not
chosen to comply it, which has given a cause of action to
file the complaint.
9. In this scenario, if the documents placed by the
complainant is scrutinized, the complainant in order to
9
C.C.No.36932/2022
examine the compliance of statutory requirements as
envisaged U/s.138 of NI Act, he got produced the Ex.P.1 the
cheque dt:04.08.2022. The said cheque is returned with
an endorsement as Funds Insufficient as per Ex.P2, the
return advise dt:10.08.2022. The Ex.P.3 is the office copy
of the legal notice dt: 24.08.2022, Ex.P.4 to P.8 are the
postal receipts and Ex.P.9 & P.10 are the postal
acknowledgments, which indicates the service on dt:
26.08.2022. The present complaint is filed on 26.09.2022.
A careful scrutiny of the documents relied by the
complainant goes to show that, a statutory requirement of
Sec.138 of N.I.Act is being complied with and this complaint
is filed well in time. The complainant has discharged his
initial burden by examining him as PW.1 and by producing
the documents as referred above. Thus, complainant is
10
C.C.No.36932/2022
entitled to rely on the statutory presumptions enshrined
U/s.118 R/w. Sec. 138 of N.I.Act.
Sec. 118 of the Act reads as thus, that every Negotiable
Instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that,
every such instrument when it has been accepted, endorsed,
negotiated or transferred was accepted, endorsed, negotiated
or transferred for consideration.
Further Sec.139 of Negotiable Instrument Act provides
for presumption infavour of PA holder. It reads like this, it
shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that, the
holder of a cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred
to in Sec. 138, for the discharge, in whole or in part, or any
debt or any other liability.
10. A combined reading of the referred sections raises
a presumption infavour of the holder of the cheque that, he
11
C.C.No.36932/2022
has received the same for discharge in whole or in part of
any debt or other liability. No doubt, the said presumptions
of law are rebuttable in nature, the accused can take
probable defense in the scale of preponderance of
probabilities to rebut the presumption available to the
complainant. It is need less to say that, the evidence of the
PW.1 can be rebutted even by effectively cross-examining
the PW.1, rather entering the witness box.
11. So here, it is relevant to note that, whether the
accused no.2 & 3 have really rebutted the presumption
available under the law which requires due consideration.
Because, they have not chosen to adduce their side
evidence. It is the case of the complainant that, as he and
the accused no.3 were doing a partnership business in the
name and style of M/s. J.V.G.Aqua Pets, they both came
12
C.C.No.36932/2022
into well acquaintance and under such acquittance, the
accused no.2 & 3 have borrowed Rs.5 lakhs assuring to
return back the amount within one and half year. Though,
they had agreed to return the amount and having failed to
comply the promise, on repeated demand, they have issued
the disputed cheque at Ex.P.1 which is being dishonoured.
On the other hand, the accused no.2 & 3 would not
dispute their acquittance with the complainant or would
not dispute of they carrying on the partnership business
and so also, the disputed cheque at Ex.P.1 does belongs to
accused no.3, but they would deny the loan transaction and
the issuance of the disputed cheque to the complainant
towards the discharge of legal liability. On the other hand,
they would take a contention of the denial of loan
transaction and also, they would take a contention that,
they have repaid Rs.4,70,000/- and they are due of only
13
C.C.No.36932/2022
Rs.30,000/-. They also contend that, as the accused no.3
as a partner of the firm used to keep a signed blank
cheques in the office and when he used to go outside on the
business work, the complainant used to be in the office and
he has misused the kept cheques by filing the present
complaint and thereby, claiming that, they have rebutted
the presumption.
12. In the back ground of the rival claims of the
parties, it suffices that, the accused no.2 is the mother of
the accused no.3 and so also, the complainant and the
accused no.3 having started a partnership business called
M/s.J.V.G Aqua Pets and it being dissolved. It also suffices
that, though the complainant has made an allegation of the
accused no.2 also borrowing the loan amount with the
accused no.3 and issuing the disputed cheque towards the
14
C.C.No.36932/2022
discharge of legal liability, but on perusal of the disputed
cheque at Ex.P.1, it suffices that, the disputed cheque is
standing in the name of the accused no.3 as the proprietor
of the accused no.1 firm M/s.J.V.G. Aquatics, Perhaps, the
complainant would also admit that, the accused no.2 had
no role to play in the loan transaction as pleaded in the
complaint. The admission of the PW.1 would read like this,
ರೂ.5 ಲಕ್ಷ ಹಣವನ್ನು 2ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿ ನನ್ನನ್ನು ಕೇಳಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ
ಮುಂದುವರಿದು 3ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿ ಕೇಳಿರುವುದಾಗಿ ಹೇಳಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಈಗ ಹೇಳಿದ
ಹಣವನ್ನು 3ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಯು ಜೆ.ವಿ.ಜೆ ಆಕ್ವಾಪೆಟ್ಸ ಖಾತೆಗೆ ವರ್ಗಾವಣೆ
ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯು ಅದು ಅವರ ಬಂಡವಾಳ ಹೂಡಿದ ಹಣ
ವಾಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ನಾನು ಹೇಳಿದ ಹಾಗೆ 3 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿ
ವರ್ಗಾವಣೆ ಮಾಡಿದ ರೂ.5 ಲಕ್ಷ ಕೈ ಸಾಲ ಎಂದು ನಾನು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಆದರೆ
ಲಾಭದ ಹಣವನ್ನು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತೇನೆಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. So, here the
admission of the PW.1 would suffice that, the accused no.2
15
C.C.No.36932/2022
has no role to play in the transaction as pleaded in the
complaint. Perhaps, as said above, the Ex.P.1 itself suffices
that, it contains the signature of the accused no.3 alone as
the proprietor of the firm J.V.G.Aquatics, So, here it
establishes that, the loan transaction is being taken place
only between the complainant and accused no.3 and not
with the accused no.2.
13. Here, it is relevant to note that, though the
accused no.3 at one breath would deny the receipt of Rs.5
lakhs from the complainant, but at another breath he would
take two folded stand which itself contradicts his defence.
Because, when he categorically denies the receipt of Rs.5
lakhs as the loan amount, he should stick-on to his
defence, rather taking the dual defence. At one breath, he
would defend that, the amount transferred by the
16
C.C.No.36932/2022
complainant on 14.12.2020 is the profit amount which he
was entitled under the partnership firm M/s.J.V.G. Aqua
pets and at the another breath, he would take a defence
that, he has repaid almost Rs.4,70,000/- and he is due only
Rs.30,000/-. In this regard he has also got produced the
bank statement at Ex.D.1 and the relevant payments are
being marked at Ex.D.1(a) to D1(f). The suggestion posed to
the PW.1 would read like this, ನಾನು ಹೇಳಿದ ಹಾಗೇ 3ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿ
ವರ್ಗಾವಣೆ ಮಾಡಿದ ರೂ.5 ಲಕ್ಷ ಕೈಸಾಲ ಎಂದು ನಾನು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಆದರೆ
ಲಾಭದ ಹಣವನ್ನು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತೇನೆಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. Again, ದಿ.14.12.2020
ರಂದುನನ್ನ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್ ಖಾತೆಯಿಂದ 3 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್ ಖಾತೆಗೆ ವರ್ಗಾವಣೆ
ಯಾದ ರೂ. 5 ಲಕ್ಷ ಹಣವನ್ನು 2 ಮತ್ತು 3 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಯು ಅಕ್ಟಾಪೆಟ್ಸ ಖಾತೆಗೆ
ವರ್ಗಾವಣೆ ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಹಾಗಾಗಿ ಅವರುಗಳಿಗೆ ನನ್ನ ಬಳಿ ಹಣ ಕೇಳುವ
ಪ್ರಮೇಯ ಉದ್ಬವವಾಗಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಕಾರಣ ಅವರಿಗೆ ಹಣದ ಅವಶ್ಯಕತೆ ಇರು
17
C.C.No.36932/2022
ವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. Again, ಆರೋಪಿಯಿಂದ ನನಗೆ ರೂ,4 ಲಕ್ಷದ 70
ಸಾವಿರ ಈಗಾಗಲೆೇ ಸಂದಾಯ ಆಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯು ಹೌದು ಎಂದು
ನುಡಿಯುತ್ತಾ ಅದು ಬೇರೆ ವ್ಯವಹಾರದ ಹಣ ಎಂದು ನುಡಿಯುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಗೆ 1
ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆಯ ಆಕ್ಸಿಸ್ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕಿನ ಸ್ಟೇಟ್ ಮೆಂಟ್ನ್ನು ತೋರಿಸಿ ಜೆ.ವಿ.ಜೆ
ಆಕ್ವಾಪೆಟ್ಸ ಸಂಸ್ಗೆಗೆ ಹಾಗೂ ನನ್ನ ವೈಯಕ್ತಿಕ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್ ಖಾತೆಗೆ ಹಂತ ಹಂತವಾಗಿ
ಅಂದರೆ ದಿ. 16.12.2020 ರಂದು 20 ಸಾವಿರ, ದಿಃ 13.02.2021 ರಂದು ರೂ.
21,900/-, ದಿ. 08.03.2021 ರಂದು ರೂ. 1 ಲಕ್ಷದ 67 ಸಾವಿರ, ರೂ. 66,600/- ,
ರೂ. 10 ಸಾವಿರ, ದಿಃ 05.04.2021 ರಂದು ರೂ.50 ಸಾವಿರ , ದಿಃ 12.04.2021
ರಂದು ರೂ. 10 ಸಾವಿರ, ದಿಃ 16.06.2021 ರಂದು ರೂ.10 ಸಾವಿರ, ದಿಃ
19.07.2021 ರಂದು ರೂ. 10 ಸಾವಿರ ಮತ್ತು ದಿಃ 20.07.2021 ರಂದು ರೂ. 45
ಸಾವಿರ ಜಮಾ ಆಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯು ಜಮಾ ಆಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ ಆದರೆ ಈ
ಪ್ರಕರಣದ ವ್ಯವಹಾರದ ಹಣ ಅಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ನುಡಿಯುತ್ತಾರೆ.
14. So, this evidence would indicate that, though
at one breath he would deny the receipt of Rs.5 lakhs as a
18
C.C.No.36932/2022
hand loan, but he would contend that, it is his profit
amount. If really, the amount acknowledged by the accused
no.3 is a profit amount, then what made him to pay
Rs.4,70,000/- as could be found in Ex.D.1(a) to D.1(f) is
not made clear. So, here this evidence would suffice that,
the amount acknowledged by the accused no.3 is not a
profit amount, but rather it is a loan amount. It is also
relevant to note that, if really the said amount ie.,
Rs.4,70,000/- is alleged to be paid and the balance amount
is only Rs.30,000/-, then rather he transferring the entire
amount of Rs.4,70,000/- to the account of M/s. J.V.G
Aquapets, why did he transferred some of the amounts
more particularly Rs.21,900/- at Ex.D.1(b), Rs.66,600/- &
Rs.10,000/- at Ex.D.1(c), Rs.10,000/- at Ex.D.1(f),
Rs.10,000/- at Ex.D.1(g) to the individual bank account of
19
C.C.No.36932/2022
the complainant. So, here this transaction creates a doubt
and it suffices that, the defence raised by the accused is
unacceptable.
15. It is not in dispute that, the complainant and the
accused no.3 were doing a partnership business of
M/s. J.V.G.Aqua Pets. Here, the accused no.3 would take a
contention that, while they doing a partnership business, he
had kept blank signed cheques in the office and since, he
was required to go out on the business work of the
partnership firm, the complainant has taken the blank
signed disputed cheque and has misused it. So, therefore,
the accused no.3 claiming that, the disputed cheque is
being misused by the complainant, contends that, he never
issued the disputed cheque towards any legal liability. But,
however to appreciate the said defence, he has either
20
C.C.No.36932/2022
produced any probable evidence to accept the defence or
has elicited the favourable answer from the mouth of the
PW.1 so as to appreciate the complainant misusing the
disputed cheque. For a moment, if it is construed that, he
had kept a signed blank cheques in the office, certainly he
would have mentioned the particulars in the cheque book
or in some book which would have supported his defence.
As said above, it is not in dispute that, the complainant
and the accused no.3 have started a partnership business
in M/s. J.V.G Aqua pets and it is also not in dispute that,
the firm is being dissolved. When, the accused no.3 admits
of the dissolution of the firm, he could have questioned the
complainant about the disputed cheque or in case if he was
not in a position to trace out of the cheques or was not in
a position to get back the cheques, he could have requested
his bank to stop the payment by putting forth his initial
21
C.C.No.36932/2022
defence. But, rather the disputed cheque at Ex.P.1 is being
dishonored with the shara as Funds Insufficient as per
Ex.P.2. So, here it suffices that, the defence raised by the
accused appears to be unacceptable. No doubt, he also
takes the contention that, the disputed cheque is being
misused by the complainant, but again he had no
impediment in taking legal action against the complainant
for the alleged misuse of the cheque.
16. It is also relevant to note that, on the disputed
cheque being dishonored, the complainant has got issued
the demand notice as per Ex.P.3 and it is being served as
per Ex.P.9 & 10. Ex.P.9 is the postal acknowledgment
which pertains to the accused no.3. Here, it is relevant to
note that, the accused no.3 would seriously dispute the
service of demand notice. The suggestions posed to the
22
C.C.No.36932/2022
PW.1 would indicate this fact, which reads like this, ನಿಪಿ.9
ರಲ್ಲಿ ಇರುವ ಸಹಿ 3 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಯ ಸಹಿ ಅಲ್ಲ ವೆಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ನಿಪಿ.1
ರಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಸಹಿಗೂ ನಿಪಿ.9 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಇರುವ ಸಹಿಗೂ ವ್ಯತ್ಯಾಸ ಇರುತ್ತವೆಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ
ಮುಂದುವರಿದು ಬಹಳಷ್ಟು ಬಾರಿ 3 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಯು ಆ ರೀತಿ ಸಹಿ
ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆಂದು ನುಡಿಯುತ್ತಾರೆ. This suggestion would indicate
that, the accused no.3 is denying the service of demand
notice. But, however on perusal of the evidence of PW.1, it
indicates that, there was the issuance of the demand notice
and the reply notice between the parties. Perhaps, the
complainant has placed the reply notice dt; 12.09.2022
which is alleged to be issued by the accused no.2 & 3. No
doubt, the said reply notice is not being exhibited, but by
perusal of the stand taken in the reply notice with a stand
taken by the defence would suffice that, it is a reply notice
issued by the accused no.2 & 3. So, it could be said that,
23
C.C.No.36932/2022
though the accused no.3 has denied the service of demand
notice, but the reply notice placed on record would suffice
the demand notice being served on the accused. So, here
the conduct of the accused no.3 is also requires to be
appreciated so as to draw the inference. As could be seen
from the evidence, it indicates that, the defence raised by
the accused no.3 is only to avoid the liability under the
disputed cheque. If really, the disputed cheque is alleged to
be misused by the complainant, he had ample opportunity
to take legal action against the complainant, which
admittedly not forthcoming. In other words, it suffices the
loan transaction between the complainant and the accused
no.3 and the accused no.3 issuing the disputed cheque
toward the discharge of legal liability.
24
C.C.No.36932/2022
17. In the decision reported in (2021) 5 SCC 283 –
Kalamani Tex and Another., Vs. P.Balasubramanian,
(2010) 11 SCC 441- Rangappa Vs. Sri.Mohan., wherein
it is held that, when once the signature of an accused on
the cheque is established, than the reverse onus clauses
become operative, also aptly applies to the case in hand.
When the complainant has established the accused no.3
having issued the cheque at Ex.P.1 towards the discharge
of loan liability and their existed a legally enforceable debt,
the onus to disprove it, shifts on the accused no.3 which is
not been proved by placing positive evidence. In this
background, having the accused no.3 not disputed the
complainant case by placing positive evidence, this court is
of the considered view that, the cheque issued by the
accused no.3 at Ex.P.1 is for the legally enforceable debt
and this fact is being established by the complainant by
25
C.C.No.36932/2022
placing cogent and positive evidence which is not rebutted
by the other side.
18. As said above, the accused no.3 has not disputed
the cheque does pertains to him. It could be said that, the
accused no.3 has not disputed the cheque in question and
signature found therein. When the drawer has admitted the
issuance of cheque therein, the presumption envisaged
U/s.118 R/w.139 of N.I.Act would operate infavour of the
complainant. The said provisions lies on a special rule of
evidence applicable to negotiable instruments. The
presumption is one of law and thereunder the court shall
presume that, the instrument was endorsed for
consideration. So also, in the absence of contrary evidence
on behalf of the accused, the presumption U/s.118 of
N.I.Act goes in favour of the complainant. No doubt, as said
26
C.C.No.36932/2022
statutory presumptions are rebuttable in nature, but when
the complainant has relied upon the statutory
presumptions enshrined U/s.118 R/w.Sec.139 of N.I.Act, it
is for the accused to rebut the presumption with cogent and
convincing evidence. To put it in other way, the burden lies
upon the accused no.3 to prove the cheque in question at
Ex.P.1 was not issued for the discharge of debt or liability.
19. It is worth to note that, Sec.106 of Indian
Evidence Act postulates that, the burden is on the accused
to establish the fact which is especially within its
knowledge. This provision is exception to the general rule
that, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution to
establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt. In that view
of matter, the burden is on the accused to prove that, the
cheque in question was not issued for discharge of any
27
C.C.No.36932/2022
liability. But, despite the accused no.3 has taken the
defence that, the Ex.P.1 was not issued towards the legal
liability, but the said fact and the version is not been
established. No doubt, the accused no.3 would contend
that, the contents found in Ex.P.1 was being reduced by the
complainant, but when the complainant was able to
establish his case, the complainant is being protected
U/s.20 of N.I.Act.
20. From the discussion made supra, it could be said
that, the complainant has established his case by placing
positive evidence. On the other hand, the accused no.3
failed to to establish his defence by placing probable defence
and also, failed to elicit the said fact from the mouth of the
PW.1. To put it in other way, the accused no.3 though
taken a probable defence, but it is not been established by
28
C.C.No.36932/2022
placing the positive evidence. The presumption of law lies
in favour of the complainant as envisaged U/s.118, R/w.
Sec. 139 of N.I.Act. In this back ground, the case of the
complainant requires to be accepted. The evidence placed
on record establishes that, the complainant has proved
that, for discharge of the legal liability, the accused no.3 has
issued Ex.P1 and it is being dishonored as per Ex.P2. As
the evidence suffices that, no liability is proved against the
accused no.2, Point No.1 is answered in the “Partly in the
Affirmative’.
21. Point No.2:- For the reasons discussed in the
point No.1, the complainant has proved the guilt of the
accused no.3 punishable U/s.138 of N.I.Act. The Hon’ble
Apex Court also dealt in the decision reported in (2018) 1
SCC 560, M/s. Meters and Instrument Pvt. Ltd., Vs.
29
C.C.No.36932/2022
Kanchana Mehta., wherein, It is held that “the object of
provision being primarily compensatory, punitive element
being mainly with the object of enforcing the compensatory
element, compounding at the initial stage has to be
encouraged, but is not debarred at the later stage subject to
appropriate compensation has may be found acceptable to
the parties or the court”. By considering the decision, it
could be said that, the time when the transaction has taken
place and the primary object of the provision being kept in
mind, this court is of the considered view that rather
imposing punitive sentence, if sentence of fine is imposed
with a direction to compensate the complainant for its
monetary loss by awarding compensation U/s.357 of
Cr.P.C., it would meet the ends of justice. By considering
these aspects, this court is of the considered view that, it
would be just and proper to impose fine of Rs.5,05,000/-.
30
C.C.No.36932/2022
Out of the compensation of Rs.5,05,000/-, an amount of
Rs.5,00,000/- shall be awarded to the complainant U/s.357
of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, this court proceed to pass the
following :
ORDER
Acting U/s.278(2) of BNSS -2023
(Old Correspondence No. 255(2) of Code of
Criminal Procedure), the accused no.3 as a
proprietor of accused no.1 firm is convicted for the
offence punishable under section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act.
Acting U/s.278(1) of BNSS -2023
(Old Correspondence No. 255(1) of Code of
Criminal Procedure), the accused no.2 is
acquitted for the offence punishable under section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The accused no.3 as a proprietor of accused
no.1 firm is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,05,000/-
(Rupees Five Lakhs and Five Thousand only).
31
C.C.No.36932/2022
In default thereof, the accused no.3 shall
undergo simple imprisonment for the term of one
year.
Acting U/s. 396 of BNSS – 2023 (Old
Correspondence No.357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C), it is
ordered that, Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs
only) there from shall be paid to the complainant
as compensation. The remaining fine amount of
Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) is
defrayed to the state for the expenses incurred in
the prosecution.
The bail bond and cash surety furnished by
the accused no.2 stands canceled.
Return the deposited cash surety to the
accused no.2 on proper verification.
The office is to furnish the free copy of this
Judgment to the accused forthwith.
(Directly dictated to stenographer on computer, typed by her, revised by me and
then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 9th day of April 2026).
Digitally signed by
JAI JAI SHANKAR J
SHANKAR J Date: 2026.04.10
13:53:19 +0530
(JAI SHANKAR.J)
XXII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bengaluru.
32
C.C.No.36932/2022
ANNEXURE
List of witnesses examined on behalf of complainant:-
PW.1 : Sri. Chetan.R
List of exhibits marked on behalf of complainant:-
Ex.P.1 : Original cheque Ex.P1(a) : Signature of the accused Ex.P2 : Bank Memo Ex.P3 : Legal notice Ex.P4 to 8 : Postal receipts Ex.P9 & 10 : Postal acknowledgments Ex.P11 & 12 : Track consignments Ex.P13 to 15 ; Unserved RPAD covers
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the accused:-
– Nil-
List of exhibits marked on behalf of the accused:-
Ex.D.1 : Bank Statements
Ex.D.1(a) to (h) : Relevant entries
JAI Digitally signed by
JAI SHANKAR J
SHANKAR Date: 2026.04.10
J 13:53:23 +0530
(JAI SHANKAR.J)
XXII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bengaluru.
33
C.C.No.36932/2022