Bangalore District Court
Devaraju T.R vs Rathanamma on 8 April, 2026
KABC020570762024
IN THE COURT OF THE XXII ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES AND ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
(SCCH-24)
Presided Over by Smt. Roopashri, B.Com., LL.B.,
XXII ADDL., SCJ & ACJM,
MEMBER - MACT,
BENGALURU.
Dated: On this day of 8th day of April 2026
CC NO.17111/2024
1. Sl.No. of the Case : C.C.No.17111 of 2024
2. The date of : 01-07-2024
commission of the
offence
3. Name of the : Mr. Devraju T R
Complainant Aged about 40 years,
S/o Ramaiah,
R/at No.6/8,
Sanjevappa Building
4th cross, 1st main
Byataranapura,
Mysore road,
Government Electric Factory,
Bengaluru South -560026.
(By Sri. Anand M.N, Advocate)
SCCH-24 2 C.C.17111/2024
4. Name of the Smt. Rathanamma
Accused W/o Gangappa B
No.17, 1st main, 1st floor,
Opp Rajivghandi Politechnic
GSR Auto Mobile,
Next to Life Care Medical,
Kengunte cross, Malathalli,
Bengaluru -560056.
(By Sri Avinash A.P, Advocate)
5. The offence complained : Under Section 138 of the
of or proves Negotiable Instrument Act.
6. Plea of the accused and : Pleaded not guilty.
his examination
7. Final Order : Accused found guilty
8. Date of such order for : 08-04-2026
the following
JUDGMENT
This complaint is filed under Sec. 200 of Cr. P. C.
for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. It is the case of the complainant that:
The accused and complainant are known to each
other since several years. In that acquaintance, during
the 4th week of March 2024 the accused had approached
the complainant for hand loan of Rs.6,00,000/- for her
family legal necessities. The complainant had withdraw
the amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from his bank account on
SCCH-24 3 C.C.17111/202430-03-2024 and paid it to the accused. The accused
agreed to repay the amount within 15 days. Even after
expiry of 15 days, the accused has not repaid the
amount. Thereafter, the accused issued post dated
cheque bearing No.889562 dated 25-04-2024 for a sum
of Rs.6,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India,
Nagarabhavi 2nd stage Branch, Bangalore. As per the
instruction, when the complainant presented the
cheque through his banker, same was dishonor and
returned with memo “Account Blocked and Stopped by
Home Branch”. Thereafter, the complainant got issued
legal notice to the accused on 11-06-2024 through
RPAD. The notice was returned with shara “Insufficient
Address”. Accordingly, the accused has committed an
offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I Act.
3. After recording the sworn statement of the
complainant and verifying the documents, cognizance
was taken against the accused for the offence
punishable under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act. The accused on
receiving the summons appeared before this Court
through her counsel, enlarged on bail and her plea was
recorded. The accused pleaded not guilty and claims to
be tried. Hence, the case was posted for evidence of the
complainant.
SCCH-24 4 C.C.17111/2024
4. The complainant got examined himself as
PW.1, and got marked documents as Ex.P1 to 9. Then,
the case was posted for recording the statement of
accused under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. In the statement U/s
313 Cr.P.C., the accused has denied all the
incriminating evidence appearing against her and
claimed to be tried. The accused got examined herself as
DW.1 and got marked documents as Ex.R1 to Ex.R4.
Hence the case was posted for argument.
5. Heard the arguments and perused the
records.
6. The following points arise for my
consideration:
1. Whether the complainant
proves that accused has committed
offence punishable under Sec.138 of
N.I. Act?
2. What order?
7. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative
Point No.2: As per final order
for the following:
SCCH-24 5 C.C.17111/2024
-: R E A S O N S :-
8. POINT No.1:- It is the definite case of the
complainant that, towards the discharge of liability, the
accused has issued disputed cheque and when the
cheque was presented, same was dishonoued for the
reason “Account Blocked and Stopped by Home
Branch”. Though the said fact was brought to the notice
of the accused by issuing legal notice, but the accused
has failed to repay the cheque amount.
9. To substantiate the contention, the
complainant got examined himself as PW1. The PW.1 in
his examination in chief has reiterated the averments
made in the complaint. Ex.P1 is the cheque which bears
the signature of accused. It is deposed by Pw-1 that
cheque in question was issued by the accused towards
discharge of liability. The cheque in question was
presented by the complainant through his banker which
was returned with memo as per ExP2 stating ‘Account
Blocked and Stopped by Home Branch”. Hence, he got
issued legal notice to the accused through RPAD, which
is produced at Ex.P.3. The postal receipt is marked at
Ex.P.4. Postal cover is marked at Ex.P5. The postal
envelope was opened in the court, the notice inside it
was marked as Ex.P6. Bank statement, Registration
SCCH-24 6 C.C.17111/2024
certificate and Sec.65 B certificate are marked at Ex.P7
to Ex.P9.
10. The accused while admitting that
complainant is known to her through the mother in law
of the complainant has taken the defence that she was
running chit business and complainant invested sum of
Rs.50,000/- in the chit business, at no point of time she
had borrowed sum of Rs.6,00,000/- from the
complainant. It is the specific defence of the accused
that the complainant had given assurance to the
accused that he will provide loan facility of
Rs.5,00,000/- from the bank and brought the bank
officials to her house. At that time she had given blank
cheque to the bank official. Since the complainant did
not made arrangement to get the loan from the bank, it
constrained her to avail loan from some other bank. But
the complainant instead of returning the cheque, has
misused the said cheque by forging her signature. The
accused in further has denied the service of legal notice
to her.
11. In order to substantiate the defence, the
accused got examined herself as DW.1 and got marked
documents as Ex.R1 to Ex.R4.
SCCH-24 7 C.C.17111/2024
12. If the entire evidence of accused is perused,
no where she has disputed the financial capacity of the
complainant to lend sum of Rs.6,00,000/- to her.
Hence, there is no need to discuss on the financial
capacity of the complainant.
13. So far as the dispute raised as to the service
of legal notice is concerned, the complainant has issued
legal notice to the accused through RPAD. It is relevant
to state here that the complainant having mentioned
one address in the legal notice, when it has turned to
the RPAD cover, in the RPAD cover he has given some
other address. It is deposed by PW.1 that the address
mentioned in the legal notice is the address mentioned
in the pass book of the accused and the address
mentioned in the RPAD cover is the complete address of
the accused in which accused is residing and for proper
service of legal notice he has mentioned the said
address in the RPAD cover. Admittedly the legal notice
issued to the accused was returned un-served with
shara insufficient address. In the RPAD cover the
complainant even has mentioned the mobile number of
the accused. As per the postal shara, the accused has
not responded to the phone call. The accused has
admitted the address mentioned in the legal notice but
denied the correctness of the address mentioned in the
SCCH-24 8 C.C.17111/2024
postal cover. She has produced her Aadhar card as at
Ex.D1 to prove that she is residing in the address stated
in the Aadhar card which itself is the address
mentioned in the legal notice. But if the Bail bond
executed by the accused which is in the case file is
perused, wherein she has given her address which is
the address mentioned in the postal cover at Ex.P5.
Further in the cause title of the complaint, the
complainant has mentioned the address of the accused
which is the address mentioned in the postal cover. The
court summon was issued to the very same address and
summons issued to the accused to the said address was
personally served through the Jurisdictional PS which is
evident from the summons copy in the case file which
bears the signature of the accused. Further accused has
admitted the service of court summons. It is not in
dispute that complainant and accused are known to
each other since several years. The Pw.1 has deposed
that he had gone to the house of accused to the address
mentioned in the Ex.P5. The accused has not denied the
said evidence of the PW.1. Hence, when summons was
served to the address mentioned in the Ex.P5 and when
in the bail bond the accused herself has furnished her
address which is the address mentioned in the Ex.P5
and when even the phone number of accused was also
mentioned in the Ex.P5 and even after giving call to the
SCCH-24 9 C.C.17111/2024
said number, she has not responded by not picking the
call it clearly reveals that accused has intentionally
avoided the service of legal notice. The intention behind
in issuance of legal notice is to give an opportunity to
comply the demand made in the legal notice. But
accused had no intention to comply the demand made
in the legal notice for the reason that if she had
intention to comply the demand, on her appearance
before the court she would have paid the alleged cheque
amount. But accused has contested the case in tooth
and nail by denying the hand loan transaction of
Rs.6,00,000/- held between her and the complainant. If
the address mentioned in the Ex.P5 is perused, address
of the accused is given in detail by mentioning Door
Number and other particulars. In spite of that it was
returned as insufficient address. The postal cover was
not returned with shara “incorrect address”. The
learned counsel for the complainant at this juncture,
has referred the judgment reported in (1999) 7 SCC 510
between K.Bhaskaran V/s Sankaran Vidyabalan and
others., wherein referring Sec.27 of General Clauses Act
it was held that, “Where sender has dispatched the
notice by post with correct address written there on,
such notice can be deemed to have been served on
sender unless he proves that it was never actually
SCCH-24 10 C.C.17111/2024
served and that he was not responsible for the non
service.”
14. In (2014) 12 SCC 685 between Ajith Seeds
Limited V/s K. Gopalakrishnaiah, wherein also similar
observation was made stating that notice sent to correct
address by Registered post, is deemed to have been
served unless and until the contrary is proved.
15. As observed supra in the present case the
accused has disputed the correctness of the address
mentioned in the Ex.P5. In support of the argument the
learned counsel for the accused has referred the
judgment reported in 2025 (1) KCCR 194 between
Channaveera Naik V/s Santhosh Pandu. In the said
case service of legal notice was not proved as legal
notice was not issued to the proper address of the
accused. Apart from that, the complainant has not
proved his source of income and existence of legally
enforceable debt. Under the given set of facts, the
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has acquitted the
accused.
16. In Crl. Appeal No.287/2023 between Mysore
District Women Co-operative Bank ltd., V/s
Chandrashekar .R. decided on 05-08-2024 by the
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, wherein, the PW.1 in
SCCH-24 11 C.C.17111/2024
his cross examination has categorically stated that
accused is the resident of Bettada Madahalli but, the
address mentioned in the Ex.P3 is of Hallada Madahalli.
There is absolutely no explanation given by the
complainant as to why notice was issued to Hallada
Madahalli, when the accused was working at Bettada
Madahalli. According to the PW.1 it may be a mistake to
mention the name of village as Hallada Madahalli,
instead of addressing it to Bettada Madahalli. Under the
given set of facts it was held that there was no
compliance of requirement of Sec.138(b) of the N.I. Act.
Hence the accused was acquitted.
17. But in the present case, the PW.1 has given
explanation as to why he has addressed the legal notice
to the address mentioned in the postal cover. Hence,
there is every reason to believe that accused
intentionally has avoided the service of legal notice to
her. Hence, it can be said that complainant has
complied the mandatory requirement u/Sec.138(b) of
the NI Act.
18. It is relevant to state here that the accused
nowhere has disputed the financial capacity of the
complainant to lend sum of Rs.6,00,000/- to her. Even
then the complainant has produced his statement of
SCCH-24 12 C.C.17111/2024
account as per Ex.P7. It is the definite case of the
complainant that, accused has asked for financial
assistant to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/- in the 4 th week of
March 2022 and on 30-03-2024 by withdrawing money
from the bank he has given sum of Rs.6,00,000/- to the
accused. The complainant has relied upon Ex.P7 to
prove that as on 30-03-2024 he had sufficient amount
in his credit and on the said date he had withdrawn
sum of Rs.6,00,000/- and given it to the accused. When
it was questioned to the PW.1 as to why he has not
transferred the said amount through account transfer,
for which the PW.1 states that since accused demanded
to give the said amount by way of cash to meet her
urgent needs, instead of account transfer he has given
the said sum by way of cash.
19. The learned counsel for accused has much
argued about non disclosure of the alleged loan
transaction in the income Tax Returns and lending of
alleged sum of Rs.6,00,000/- by way of cash, even
though it is prohibited to have cash transaction more
than Rs.2,00,000/-.
20. The PW.1 has deposed that he has not
disclosed the loan transaction of Rs.6,00,000/- in his
Income Tax Return. PW.1 has given explanation as to
SCCH-24 13 C.C.17111/2024
why he has not disclosed the said transaction in his
Income Tax Return stating that since accused had given
assurance of returning the said sum within 15 days, he
has not disclosed the said transaction in the Income Tax
Returns. So far as non disclosure of loan transaction in
the Income Tax Returns is concerned, it is relevant to
refer the judgment reported in Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Crl. Appeal No.175/2010 decided on 25-09-2025. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court while deciding an Appeal
against a Bombay High Court judgment observed that
the Kerala High Court’s recent judgment in P.C. Hari Vs.
Shine Varghese and Anr., delivered on 25-06-2025 was
wrong. It is observed that “a violation of Section 269SS
of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which restricts cash
transactions above Rs.20,000/- does not render such
transactions illegal, void or unenforceable. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court observed that “the breach of Section
269SS merely attracts the statutory penalty prescribed
u/Sec.271D and cannot by itself invalidate a debt for
the purpose of proceedings u/Sec. 138 of the NI Act
1881. Holding that the presumptions under Sections
118 and 139 of the NI Act remain unaffected, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court rejected the view taken in
P.C.Hari that cash transactions above Rs.20,000/- are
void and do not qualify as “legal enforceable debt”.
Hence, non disclosure of alleged loan transaction in the
SCCH-24 14 C.C.17111/2024
Income Tax Returns does not affect the case of the
complainant in proving the alleged loan transaction.
21. Learned counsel for accused in further has
argued that though the alleged cheque was issued in
the name of God King Enterprises and though the
Account Statement at Ex.P7 is relating to God King
Enterprises and though as per the case of complainant,
by withdrawing sum of Rs.6,00,000/- from the account
of God King Enterprises, the complainant had given
amount to the accused, but the complainant has not
made God King Enterprises as party to the proceedings,
hence, on that count also the complaint is liable to be
dismissed.
22. In the light of the argument canvassed by the
learned counsel for accused, if the materials placed on
record is perused, in the Legal notice, in the Complaint
and in the evidence in chief, the Complainant has
categorically stated that he is the Proprietor of God King
enterprises. The Complainant has produced
Registration Certificate as per Ex.P8 which discloses
that he is the sole Proprietor of God King Enterprises.
When complainant himself is the Proprietor of God King
Enterprises, under such circumstances, even if cheque
is issued in the name of God King Enterprises and
SCCH-24 15 C.C.17111/2024
amount was paid from the account of the aforesaid
Proprietorship concern it would not make the complaint
invalid. The learned counsel for the Complainant at this
juncture has referred the judgment reported in (2008)
SCC 536 between Shankar Finance and Investments
V/s State of Andhra Pradesh and Others., wherein
question was raised, Who should represent the Payee
where the payee is a company or how the payee should
be represented where payee is a sole Proprietary
concern. It was observed that, company incorporated
under Companies Act 1956 is a legal entity distinct from
its share holders while a Proprietary concern is not a
legal entity distinct from its Proprietor but an individual
trading under a trade name.
23. When complainant is the Proprietor of God
King Enterprises, even if cheque is issued in the name
of Proprietorship concern the complaint filed by the
Complainant in his individual capacity is maintainable.
24. At the cost of repetition the accused has
disputed her signature in the Ex.P1 and contended that,
the Complainant under the guise of providing loan
facility to her in the bank has taken the blank unsigned
cheque and also her signature on the blank papers and
documents and even though loan was not provided to
SCCH-24 16 C.C.17111/2024
her from the bank, the complainant instead of returning
the blank unsigned cheque, by forging the signature of
the accused and by filling the blank cheque according to
his whims and fancies has lodged false complaint
against her. The accused has relied upon Whatsapp
conversation held between her and the Complainant to
substantiate the defence taken by her.
25. According to the Complainant, the accused is
known to him since 5 years as accused is residing
nearby the house of his mother-in-law and accused is
the close associate of his mother-in-law and in that
acquittance he came to know of the accused. According
to the PW.1, accused is running Chit business. Even the
accused in her evidence in chief has admitted that she
is running chit business in small scale. The accused in
further has deposed that, Complainant had invested
sum of Rs.50,000/- with her in the chit business and
that except the chit transaction she had no other
transaction with the complainant. The complainant
denied his having chit transaction of any amount with
the accused but deposed that, his mother in law had
chit transaction with the accused and during the said
transaction the relationship between the accused and
his mother-in-law has strained. It is relevant to state
here that, the accused having admitted in her evidence
SCCH-24 17 C.C.17111/2024
in chief of her running chit business, but during the
cross examination recorded on 13.02.2026, she has
denied her running chit transaction at any point of time
and deposed that, the complainant at no point of time
had invested any amount with her in the chit business.
Having deposed so, again in the further cross
examination recorded on 02.03.2026 the accused
deposed that, prior to Corona she was running chit
business but, after the pandemic, she closed her chit
transaction. At the cost of repetition it is the defence of
the accused that, the complainant assured her of
providing loan to the tune of Rs.5 lakh and in that
regard collected blank un signed cheque and signature
on some blank papers but later on failed to provide any
loan amount to her. Though the accused has stated that
she is financially sound as she is fetching rental income
to the tune of Rs.50 to 60 thousand per month but from
the evidence of accused it can be gathered that in the
year 2023 she had borrowed some of Rs.10 lakh to meet
her family necessities. According to the accused, the
complainant had brought the bank Officials to her
house under the guise of providing loan facility to her at
that time she had given blank cheque to the Bank
Officials. It is admitted by DW.1 that she had not given
blank unsigned cheque to the complainant. When
accused has not given any blank unsigned cheque to
SCCH-24 18 C.C.17111/2024
the complainant and according to the evidence of
accused, she had given blank unsigned cheque to the
Official of the bank, under such circumstances question
of complainant misusing the alleged blank unsigned
cheque given to the bank Official does not arise. So far
as the whatsapp conversation allegedly held between
the complainant and accused regarding the assurance
given by the complainant to provide loan facility to her
from the bank is concerned, the said conversation was
held in the year 2023 but the case of complainant that
the disputed transaction was held in the year 2024.
Further, in the Ex.D2 there is no whisper regarding the
blank unsigned cheque given by the accused to the
complainant. Hence, Ex.D2 would no way assist the
accused in proving the defence taken by her. As
observed supra accused has disputed her signature in
the Ex.P1. But if the disputed signature in the Ex.P1 is
compared with the admitted signature in the Plea, 313
Statement, deposition of Dw.1, Bail bond etc., it tallies
with each other and there is no dissimilarities to any
extent. Hence, it can safely be held that signature in the
Ex.P1 is the signature of the accused alone. At the risk
of repetition, when as per the own evidence of DW.1, she
had given blank unsigned cheque to the bank Officials
but not to the Complainant, it is for the accused to
SCCH-24 19 C.C.17111/2024
explain how the cheque in question has reached the
hands of the Complainant.
26. From the materials placed on record, it can be
said that the complainant has proved his case of
lending sum of Rs.6 lakhs to the accused and the
cheque in question issued towards the discharge of the
debt.
27. As per the documents relied by the
complainant, cheque was returned for the reason
“Account blocked and account stopped by home branch
(11819).”
28. The learned defence counsel by referring the
aforesaid endorsement has vehemently submitted that,
as per the recent judgment of the Hon’ble High court
when the cheque is dishnour for the reason Account
Blocked, the complaint u/Sec. 138 N.I Act is not
maintainable. The learned counsel at this juncture has
referred the judgment rendered by Hon’ble High court of
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, in CRM-M-
14537/2018 between Rajesh Meena V/s State of
Haryana and others, decided on 01-07-2019. In the
said case the cheque was returned with remarks
“Account blocked.” The Hon’ble High court has
SCCH-24 20 C.C.17111/2024
dismissed the complaint on the ground that as on the
date of presentation of the cheque before the bank, the
account holder was not maintaining the said account. It
was observed that if an account holder is deprived off
his authority, control and dominance over the bank
account, it cannot be said that the account is being
maintained by the said account holder.
29. In the said case the post dated cheques date
27-06-2017 and 27-07-2017 were issued by the
accused. The proceedings against the accused company
were initiated under the provisions of IB Code 2016 and
the order in terms of Sec.14 of IB Code was passed on
21-07-2017 i.e., subsequent to the issuance of the
cheque dated 27-06-2017. The cheque was dishonoured
for the reason “Account blocked.” The complainant
proceeded to serve the statutory notice dated 4-10-2017
which was served to the accused on 09-10-2017. The
accused had sent reply notice on 16-10-2017. In the
reply notice the accused had clearly stated that because
of prohibitory orders by NCLT New Delhi, the account in
question stood blocked and thereby request was made
by the accused to the complainant to withdraw the legal
notice. It was further requested that as and when the
accused would get the permission to operate the
account of the company, the payment in respect of the
SCCH-24 21 C.C.17111/2024
cheques in question would be made to the Complainant.
In the reply notice it is also stated that intervention by
the company – NCLT was conveyed to the complainant
even before the presentation of the cheque and request
was made to the complainant not to present the cheque.
Inspite of that the complainant presented the cheque
and it was dishonoured. In the given set of facts the
Hon’ble High Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh has
dismissed the complaint.
30. The learned defence counsel has referred one
more judgment rendered by Hon’ble High court of
Karnataka in Criminal Petition No.1107/2025 between
M/s ND. Developers Pvt. Ltd., and others V/s Ritesh
Raushan decided on 4-3-2026. In the said case also the
cheque was dishonoured for the reason “Account
blocked.” The Hon’ble High court was pleased to quash
the proceedings by allowing the Criminal Petition filed
by the accused on the ground that when the cheque was
dishonoured for the reason “Account block situation
covered in 2125 it would means that withdrawal is
stopped in lieu of insolvency of the account holder,
therefore it is a situation where the drawer of the
cheque has no control or authority over the account in
the case of debit freezement and in order to become
liable for the offence U/sec.138 of the Act, the accused
SCCH-24 22 C.C.17111/2024
is require to have control over the account when the
cheque becomes due for presentation / realization.”
31. In the said case, cheque was issued for Rs.41
lakh on 9-3-2024. Two crimes are registered against the
petitioners / accused in Cr.92/2022 and 116/2023 for
the offences punishable U/sec.406, 420, 504 and 506 of
IPC. The Investigating Officer investigate into the said
case directed debit freezement of the account of the
accused company and its Managing Director on 24-05-
2024 till the investigation in the said crime would get
completed. The police notice dated 24-05-2024 was
given to the bank requesting debit freezement. It is after
issuance of the cheque in issue, the account was frozen.
The cheque dated 9-3-2024 was returned for the reason
“Account blocked situation covered in 2125.” The
complainant then issued notice to the accused. The
notice was replied by the accused. At the time when the
reply was rendered by the accused, they were not aware
of the fact of debit freezement of the account. They came
to know of it only on 26-7-2024, when the bank
communicates to the accused about debit freezement. In
the said case attachment by an order of the court was
passed after the alleged cheque was issued. The Hon’ble
High court has held that, “The attachment of the bank
account of the petitioner had the affect of disabling the
SCCH-24 23 C.C.17111/2024
petitioner / accused from operating or maintaining the
said account. The accused could not exercise his right
either to deposit into or withdraw from the said account.
The act of attachment of the bank account of the drawer
/ accused cannot be said to be a voluntary act of the
drawer / accused. It cannot be said that the accused
contrived to have the account attached only for the
purpose of warding of the penal consequences
u/Sec.138 of the Act. It also cannot be said that, after
attachment of the bank account, the same was been
maintained by the petitioner. For an account to be
maintained by an account holder, it is essential that he
is in a position to operate the said account either by
depositing monies therein or by withdrawing money
there from. He should be in a position to give effective
instruction to his banker with whom the account is
maintained. As long as attachment under the court
order continues, the accused could not have issue any
binding instruction to his banker and the banker was
not obliged to honor any of the instructions of the
accused in relation to the said account.” It was further
observed that, when the cheque was issued the account
was active and later on as per the order of the court the
account was blocked / frozen, hence drawer of the
cheque had no control or authority over the account.
SCCH-24 24 C.C.17111/2024
32. In the light of the observation made in the
aforesaid judgments if the materials placed on record in
the present case is perused, as observed supra the
cheque was dishonoured for the reason “Account
blocked – account stopped by Home branch (11819).”
The common reason for this block is not updating the
KYC documents or if the account is not used for a long
time. Unless and until the said issue is resolved the
account holder is prevented from making withdrawals or
transfer. If an account is blocked specifically because
the account holder failed to update KYC details, it can
be said that the said act is a voluntarily act or
negligence by the account holder. Maintaining KYC is a
process within the control of the account holder. It is no
where the case of the accused that, it is subsequent to
the issuance of the disputed cheque, her account was
blocked. In the two cases referred above the account
was blocked by a statutory authority due to the reason
beyond the control of the drawer. But, in the present
case the accused has not demonstrated that at the time
when she issued the cheque the account was active and
there was sufficient balance in the account and it is
only after the issuance of the cheque account was
blocked and she was not aware of the same. Hence the
observation made in the aforesaid two judgments has no
application to the case in hand.
SCCH-24 25 C.C.17111/2024
33. In the light of the discussion made herein
above, this court is of the considered opinion that
complainant has proved that accused has committed
the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act. Accordingly, I answered Point No.1 in
the Affirmative.
34. POINT No.2 :- The Negotiable Instruments Act
is a Special Enactment, and the provisions of the Act
prevail over the general provision contained in the Code
of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, keeping the relevant
provisions of the Act in mind the sentence is to be
passed. In the light of the reasons on the point No.1, I
proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
Acting under Sec. 278(2) of BNSS the
accused is found guilty of the offence
punishable under section 138 read with
section 142 of NI Act.
Consequently, accused is sentenced to
pay fine of Rs.6,10,000/- (Rupees Six
Lakhs Ten Thousand only), out of which
Rs.6,05,000/- shall be paid as
SCCH-24 26 C.C.17111/2024
compensation to the complainant under
Sec.396 of BNSS and Rs.5,000/- shall be
payable to the State.
In the event of default in payment
within a period of one month, the accused
shall be convicted to simple imprisonment
for a period of 4 months.
It is made clear that in view of Sec.430
of BNSS, even if the accused under goes the
default sentence imposed above, he is not
absolved of liability to pay the fine amount.
The bail bond of accused and that of
surety stands canceled.
Office to furnish the copy of this
judgment free of cost to the accused.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected and
then pronounced by me in open court, on this the 8th day of
April 2026)
(ROOPASHRI)
XXII Addl.SCJ & ACJM
Bengaluru.
SCCH-24 27 C.C.17111/2024
:ANNEXTURE:
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF THE COMPLAINANT
P.W.1 : Mr. Devaraju T R
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P.1 : Original Cheque
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of the accused.
Ex.P.2 : Endorsement.
Ex.P.3 : Copy of legal notice.
Ex.P.4 : Postal Receipt
Ex.P.5 : Postal Cover
Ex.P6 : The postal envelope was opened in
the court, the notice inside it was
marked
Ex.P7 : Bank statement
Ex.P8 : Registration certificate
Ex.P9 : Certificate Sec. 65 B
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE ACCUSED:
D.W.1 : – Rathnamma
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED:
Ex.R1 : Notarized copy of Aadhar card
Ex.R2 : Typed the conversation on the
pendrive and make a typed copy
Ex.R3 : PEN drive
Ex.R4 : Certificate u/sec.63B of Indian
Evidence Act
XXII Addl. SCJ & ACJM
Bengaluru.
Digitally
signed by
ROOPASHRI
ROOPASHRI Date:
2026.04.08
17:24:14
+0530
