Bangalore District Court
J. Murali vs Shashikala on 16 April, 2026
1 Crl.Appeal.No.424/2024
KABC010067962024
IN THE COURT OF THE LXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-63), BENGALURU.
DATED: THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026.
P R E S E N T:-
Sri. Raghavendra S. Channabasappa, B.A., LL.B (Spl).,
LXII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.424/2024
APPELLANT/ Sri. J.Murali,
ACCUSED: S/o. Sri. Jaganathan,
Aged about 53 years,
R/at. No.26,
1st Floor, 3rd Cross,
Jyothinagara,
Naidu Layout,
Subhashchandra Bose Road,
Vidhyaranyapura,
Bengaluru - 560 97.
(By Sri. Abhishek Ramesh and
Sri. Gandavarapu Krishna Revanth,
Advocates)
-V/.s-
RESPONDENT/ Smt. Shashikala,
COMPLAINANT W/o. Sri. Selvaraj,
Aged about 35 years,
R/at. No.14/14,
2 Crl.Appeal.No.424/2024
'A' 1st D Main Road,
B.K Nagar, Yeshwanthpur,
Bengaluru - 560 022.
(By Sri. M.S.N, Advocate)
*****
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant challenged the judgment and sentence passed
by the Magistrate dated: 07-02-2024 in C.C.No.10325/2021.
Wherein the said learned Magistrate has convicted the
appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section
138 of N.I. Act and sentenced him directing to pay fine of
Rs.3,55,000/- and in default to pay the fine amount, he shall
undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months. Out of total fine
amount a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- ordered to be paid to the
complainant by way of compensation and balance of
Rs.5,000/- is defrayed to the state for expenses incurred in
the prosecution.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per
their litigative status before the learned trial court. The
3 Crl.Appeal.No.424/2024
appellant is the accused and the respondent is the
complainant as per their original ranks before trial Court.
3. The respondent-complainant filed the complaint against the
appellant-accused before the learned trial Court for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I Act. Based on
the said complaint, cognizance was taken, sworn statement of
the complainant was recorded and the case was registered
against the accused in C.C.No.10325/2021 for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of N.I Act. Upon service of
summons, the accused appeared through his counsel and
plea of the accused was recorded and the accused pleaded
not guilty.
4. During the course of trial in order to prove the case of the
complainant, the complainant got examined herself as P.W-1
and got marked documents as per Ex.P-1 to 5. Accused
when examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C denied all
incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against
4 Crl.Appeal.No.424/2024
him. On the other hand, accused himself examined as D.W-1
and on his behalf marked one document as Ex.D-1.
5. After hearing both the parties, the Court below convicted the
accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I
Act and sentenced him as aforesaid. Being aggrieved by the
said conviction and sentence of the learned trial Court, the
appellant-accused has filed this criminal appeal by
challenging the Judgment on the following:-
GROUNDS
(1) The learned trial Court has been passed Judgment
without considering the complete facts of the case,
deposition of the account cross-examination of C.W-1
(respondent), bank account summary produced by the
him, cross-examination of the respondent’s husband
i.e., the complainant in C.C.No.10323/2021.
(2) That the appellant has appeared before the learned trial
Court on all dates of hearing without fail. The appellant
being the accused has a very good case on merits as
there are no records provided by the respondent to
show that he has rendered any service to the appellant.
5 Crl.Appeal.No.424/2024
(3) The complainant during her cross-examination had
stated that, the loan amount she had allegedly
advanced to accused was saving from the money given
by her husband for her monthly expenses.
(4) The husband of the respondent during the cross-
examination in C.C.No.10323/2021 had clearly admitted
that, he earns up to Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh
Only) to Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Only), but,
he does not pay any taxes that for his income. The
respondent in their complaint failed to provide records of
bank withdrawals and also do not provide any
documentary evidence to show the Court that the
amount mentioned in the complaint were advance to the
appellant.
(5) That despite stating that her husband earns
Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Only) to Rs.3,00,000/-
(Rupees Three Lakh Only), the respondent has failed to
provide any evidence to show his income. Respondent
also have not produced any evidence to show that, she
had a source to provide the alleged loan amount
mentioned in the complaint.
(6) That the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, the
Presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable
6 Crl.Appeal.No.424/2024
Instruments Act, is rebutted if the loan advance is not
reflected in the books of accounts nor is there any
Income Tax returns to that effect, the said submission
was not considered by the learned trial Court while
passing its Judgment.
(7) The learned Trial Court has erred in not considering the
statement made by the husband of the respondent-
complainant during his cross-examination, wherein he
states “I pay 1% to the RMC as Tax per Invoice issued”.
The respondent has not provided an iota of evidence to
show he holds a valid license in the alleged RMC
(Regulated Market Committees) Yard. The respondent
is a broker-middlemen and does not have a shop to run
his alleged business at the alleged RMC yard nor he
has filed any document in support of the alleged 1% of
Tax paid to the RMC Yard.
(8) That even if hypothetically considered that, the
respondent has advanced a loan amount of
Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh Only), it is admitted
by the respondent that, the money she allegedly
advanced as loan was given to her by her husband and
he neither pay any income tax nor file his income tax
returns. Considering the non-payment of income tax
with the admission of the husband of the respondent
7 Crl.Appeal.No.424/2024
that he earns Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Only) to
Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Only) per month,
inference can be drawn that the amount that the
respondent alleges to have given the appellant is
unaccounted money. It is pertinent to note that, the
respondent maintained Bank account when the alleged
money was given to the appellant however, the amounts
were not transferred through the Bank or there is any
documents supporting to show that the alleged amounts
were given to the appellant. The complaint filed by the
respondent is hit by the principles laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Basalingappa –
Vs.- Mudibasappa.
(9) That the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various Hon’ble
High Courts in plethora of judgments have held that,
when the amount advanced is large and is not
repayable within few months, the failure to disclose the
said account in Income Tax returns by the complainant
would be sufficient to rebut the presumption under
Section 139 of N.I Act.
(10) That without any evidence to show that the amount was
advanced i.e., in the books of accounts of the
respondent or her husband or in the Income Tax returns
of the respondent or her husband’s, the existence of a
8 Crl.Appeal.No.424/2024
legally enforceable debt becomes doubtful for the
alleged sum of Rs.4,00,000/-(Rupees Four Lakh Only)
advanced by way of cash. On the background of the
aforementioned facts, the case of the respondent is
doubtful and devoid of merits.
(11) The Court may be pleased to take into consideration the
legal validity of the total sum of the alleged amount
advanced by the respondent specifically considering the
respondent has no Income Tax returns, books of
accounts or Bank statement in support of respondent’s
claim. On the foregoing ground alone, the appellant is
liable to be acquitted as he has categorically established
the non-existence of a legally recoverable debt, which is
an essential ingredient under Section 139 of the
Negotiable instruments Act.
(12) That the despite the respondent carrying out business of
money lending neither the respondent nor his husband
possess a valid license and have been illegally carrying
out their money lending business.
(13) It is being brought to the notice of this Court that the
husband of the respondent has also filed a case bearing
C.C.No.10323/2021 alleging dishonor of Cheque
against the appellant before the same trial Court, the
9 Crl.Appeal.No.424/2024
Cheque in C.C.No.10323/2021 was the other cheque
that the wife of the appellant had given at the time of
obtaining loan on 07-01-2016.
(14) That the appellant on 07-01-2016 had obtained a loan of
Rs.3,00,000/- from the respondent. The wife of the
respondent had collected two blank cheques as security
at the time advancing the loan as security and the
appellant and his wife had diligently and out of great
hardship cleared the loan amount and the same has
been acknowledged by the respondent in his complaint.
The security cheques were not returned and have been
unlawfully being used to file the present case. The
learned trial Court has not considered all the relevant
facts of the case. Hence, this appeal is being brought
before this Court in the interest of Justice.
(15) That despite the lack of evidence to prove that a legally
recoverable debt exists, the learned trial Court has
without taking into consideration the aforementioned
facts of the case has wrongfully convicted the accused.
Hence, accused not committed any offence under
Section 138 of the N.I Act, 1881. Wherefore, the
impugned Judgment passed by the learned trial Court,
is liable to be set aside.
10 Crl.Appeal.No.424/2024
6. After admitting of this criminal appeal, the notice was issued to
the respondent. The respondent has appeared through her
counsel. The learned trial Court records secured.
7. Heard arguments of learned counsel for appellant and the
respondent. Perused the written arguments of both appellant
and respondent side. I have carefully perused the entire trial
Court records pertaining to this case and the impugned
Judgment.
8. The following points arise for the consideration of the Court:
1. Whether the appellant made-out grounds to allow the
appeal and set-aside the order passed by the learned
XII A.C.M.M, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.10325/2021 dated
07-02-2024?
2. What order?
9. The findings of the Court on the aforesaid points are as under:-
Point No.1 : In the Negative,
Point No.2 : As per final order for the following:-
11 Crl.Appeal.No.424/2024
REASONS
10. POINT NO.1:- The case of the complainant is that,
complainant and accused are known to each other through
accused’s wife for past more than 10 years. On well
acquaintance the accused and his wife both have approached
the complainant for hand loan amount for accused immediate
financial commitment and crisis on 10-04-2018, without
knowing husband of the complainant the accused has
borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- from the complainant by way of Cash
and at the time of borrowing the said amount accused and his
wife have assured to pay sum of interest upon the principal
amount and repay the same within 10 month with interest.
After laps of more than 10 months, when complainant
requested return her money from the accused, but, accused
started to black mail the complainant by saying that he will
disclose the money transaction with her husband without
knowledge of her husband. When complainant used to keep
quiet, accused used to postponing the dates to give money to
12 Crl.Appeal.No.424/2024
the complainant by falsely assuring her that he will pay later
her principal amount and interest, but, finally on 20-12-2020
the complainant has disclosed the reality of the money
transaction taken place between the accused and the
complainant and then the complainant and her husband both
have asked for their money return from the accused by asking
apology to discharge his liability on 30-12-2020 the accused
issued a post dated cheque bearing No.882636 dated 07-01-
2021 for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-drawn on State Bank of India,
Gokul Branch, 1st Stage, 3rd Phase, HMT Main Road,
Bengaluru-560027. As per the instructions of the accused,
the complainant has presented the said cheque for
encashment on 07-01-2021 through her Banker at SBI,
Mathikere Branch, Bengaluru-54. The said cheque returned
with an endorsement “Funds Insufficient” dated 11-01-2021.
Thus, the complainant has issued legal notice on 18-01-2021
to the accused calling upon the accused to repay the cheque
amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said
notice. The said notice was duly served upon the accused.
13 Crl.Appeal.No.424/2024
But, the accused did not repay amount. Hence, the
complainant constrained to file present complaint against the
accused for the alleged offence punishable under Section 138
of Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, this complaint.
11. The learned counsel for the respondent has argued that, the
Judgment passed by the learned trial Court in
C.C.No.10325/2021, dated 07-02-2024 is hold and good and
not committed any error, after perused the Ex.P-1 to 5 i.e.,
original cheque, endorsement of the Bank, office copy of the
legal notice dated 18-01-2021, postal receipt and postal cover
and also observed all the evidence of the complainant and
passed the Judgment against the appellant and therefore, the
appeal filed by the appellant is devoid on merits and liable to
be dismissed.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that, the
learned trial Court arrived at the wrong conclusion in respect
of the transaction between the complainant and accused.
There are contradictions in the evidence of P.W-1. Further
14 Crl.Appeal.No.424/2024
contended that, the learned Magistrate has completely
ignored the principles of criminal jurisprudence. That the
burden of proof lies on the respondent and the benefit lies in
favour of the appellant. Further contended that, the learned
trial Court failed to consider the evidence given by the P.W-1
during the course of cross-examination and fail to note Ex.P-1
was not issued for legally enforceable debt, but, same is
issued for the purpose of security and it has been misused by
the complainant. Hence, the appreciation made by the
learned Magistrate, is needs interference.
13. Perused entire order sheets, complaint filed under Section
200 of Cr.P.C, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of
N.I Act, examination-in-chief affidavit of the complainant, plea
of accusation, contents of exhibited documents as per Ex.P-1
to 5 and also Ex.D-1. There is no procedural defect of any
nature while conducting trial relating to private complaint
registered for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I
Act.
15 Crl.Appeal.No.424/2024
14. So far as appreciation of evidence is concerned, complainant
is examined as P.W-1. P.W-1 has been subsequently cross-
examined by the counsel of accused. P.W-1 has reiterated
averments of complaint in his examination-in-chief. Ex.P-1
and Ex.P-1(a) are original cheque and signature of the
accused on Ex.P-1, Ex.P-2 is the endorsement of the Bank,
Ex.P-3 is the office copy of the legal notice dated 18-01-2021,
Ex.P-4 is the postal receipt and Ex.P-5 is the postal cover.
The respondent has deposed that, no financial transaction
between himself and complainant. Complainant is a money
lender and is in the habit of giving away the finance to general
public for exorbitant interest rate. Accused is also one of such
loan seeker. Accused further contended that, he has repaid
entire loan amount and does not owe any outstanding loan
amount to the complainant. But, no evidence to show that the
accused paid entire amount to the complainant. Hence, the
contention of the accused does not reliable.
16 Crl.Appeal.No.424/2024
15. Accused had borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- from complainant by
way of cash on 10-04-2018 at that time the accused assured
the complainant to pay 2% interest upon the principal amount
and accordingly, initially the accused paid interest for 3
months to the complainant and later on accused has not paid
any interest amount to the complainant and also he assured
will repay the amount within 8 months from the date of
borrowed the amount with interest and in discharge of said
liability the accused has issued a cheque bearing No.882636
dated 07-01-2021 for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- drawn on State
Bank of India, Gokul Branch, 1st Stage, 3rd Phase, HMT Main
Road, Bengaluru – 560027. As per the instructions of the
accused, the complainant has presented the said cheque for
encashment on 07-01-2021 through his Banker at SBI,
Yashwanthpur Branch, Bengaluru – 22. The said cheque was
returned with an endorsement “Funds Insufficient” dated 11-
01-2021. Thus, the complainant has issued legal notice on
18-01-2021 to the accused calling upon the accused to repay
the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of
17 Crl.Appeal.No.424/2024
the said notice. The said notice was duly served upon the
accused. But, the accused did not repay amount.
Accordingly, the accused has committed an offence
punishable under Section 138 of N.I Act.
16. Despite notice, the accused did not make payment of cheque
amount and thereby, committed an offence punishable under
Section 138 of N.I Act. However, the accused has not repaid
the cheque amount. Accordingly, the accused has committed
an offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I Act.
Thereafter, burden shifts on the accused as per presumptions
under Section 118 & 139 of N.I Act in the form of reverse onus
on the accused to rebut presumptions.
17. To rebut the statutory presumption which could be drawn in
favour of the complainant and also to prove the probable
defense to the touch stone of preponderance of probabilities,
the accused entered into the witness box and adduced his
evidence as D.W-1 and placed before the Court in documents
i.e., Ex.D.1-Bank Statement. The learned prosecuting
18 Crl.Appeal.No.424/2024
counsel has cross-examined D.W-1 at length and Ex.D-1 is
not established entire repayment of borrowed amount to the
complainant.
18. I relied placed below mentioned Authority and it is settled
principle of law as held by House of Lords in Vickers Sons
and Maxim Ltd., Vs. Evans (1910) AC 444 as quoted with
approval by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jamma Masjid,
Mercara Vs Kodimaniandra Deviah and Others AIR 1962 SC
847 and reiterated in Shiv Shakti Co-operative Housing
Society vs Swaraj Developers, AIR 2003 SC 2434 and in
catena of decisions that the court cannot read anything into a
statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous.
19. On bare perusal of the object of the N.I. Act, it shows that the
main object of the Chapter introducing dishonour of cheque
on account of insufficiency of funds as penal offence in the
Act is to enhance the acceptability of cheque. In order to
attract the ingredients of Sec.138 of NI Act, the complainant
needs to prove that the cheque drawn by a drawer of the
19 Crl.Appeal.No.424/2024
cheque on an account maintained by him issued to the payee
in discharge of any debt or other liability, cheque is presented
to Bank within three months of the date of cheque and
returned by the drawer bank as unpaid, complainant has
made a demand for the payment of the said amount of money
by giving a notice in writing within 30 days of receipt of
information of dishonour by the Bank, and the drawer of such
cheque has not made the payment of the said amount of
money to the payee within fifteen days of the receipt of the
said notice, then such person shall be deemed to have
committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other
provisions of the Act, be punished with imprisonment for a
term which may be extended to two years, or with fine which
may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both.
20. It is well settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that a
criminal trial proceeds on the presumption of innocence of the
accused. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless
proved guilty. It is the complainant to prove the guilt of the
20 Crl.Appeal.No.424/2024
accused beyond reasonable doubt. However, in respect of
offence under Section 138 of the Act, although there is a
reverse onus clause contained in Sections 118 and 139 of the
Act, the initial burden is on the complainant.
21. It is also a settled proposition of law that the standard of proof
which is required from the accused to rebut the statutory
presumption under Section 118 read with Section 139 of the
Act is preponderance of probabilities. The accused is not
required to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. This
onus on the accused can be discharged from the materials
available on record and from the circumstantial evidences or
even by admissions in the cross-examination of complainant
and his witnesses.
22. I relied view expressed by the Apex Court in K. Bhaskaran Vs.
Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan reported in AIR 1999 SC 3762, the
Apex Court held that once the signature in the cheque is
admitted to be that of the accused, the presumption
envisaged in Section 118 of the N.I Act can legally be drawn
21 Crl.Appeal.No.424/2024
to infer that the cheque was made or drawn for consideration
on the date which the cheque bears.
23. I relied view expressed by the Apex Court in Rangappa Vs. Sri
Mohan reported in AIR 2010 SC 1898, a three Judges’ bench
of the Supreme Court held that that once issuance of a
cheque and signature thereon are admitted, presumption of a
legally enforceable debt in favour of the holder of the cheque
arises. It is for the accused to rebut the said presumption,
though accused need not adduce his own evidence and can
rely upon the material submitted by the complainant.
However, mere statement of the accused may not be
sufficient to rebut the said presumption. A post-dated cheque
is a well recognized mode of payment.
24. I relied view expressed by the Apex Court in K.S. Ranganatha
Vs. Vittal Shetty reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1191, a
three judges’ bench of the Supreme Court held that once the
cheque is admitted to be that of the accused, the presumption
envisaged in Section 118 of the Act can legally be inferred
22 Crl.Appeal.No.424/2024
that the cheque was made or drawn for consideration on the
date which the cheque bears. Section 139 of the Act enjoins
on the Court to presume that the holder of the cheque
received it for the discharge of any debt or liability. It is further
held that the position of law makes it crystal clear that when a
cheque is drawn out and is relied upon by the drawee, it will
raise a presumption that it is drawn towards a consideration
which is a legally recoverable amount; such presumption of
course, is rebuttable by proving to the contrary. The onus is
on the accused to raise a probable defence and the standard
of proof for rebutting the presumption is on preponderance of
probabilities.
25. I relied view expressed by the Apex Court in M/s. Kalemani
Tax Vs. Balan (Crl.A.No.123/2021) (LL 2021 P.75) decided on
10.02.2021, a three judges’ bench of the Supreme Court of
India has observed that, even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily
signed and handed over by the accused, which is towards
some payment, would attract presumption under Section 139
23 Crl.Appeal.No.424/2024
of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the absence of any
cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in
discharge of a debt.
26. I relied view expressed by the Apex Court in M/s. Ashok
Transport Agency V/s. Awadhesh Kumar and Another,
reported in 1998(5) Sec.567, Court has observed as under;
“A partnership firm differs from a proprietary concern
owned by an individual. A partnership is governed by
the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.
Though a partnership is not a juristic person but Order
XXX Rule 1 CPC enables the partners of a
partnership firm to sue or to be sued in the name of
the firm. A proprietary concern is only the business
name in which the proprietor of the business carries
on the business. A suit by or against a proprietary
concern is by or against the proprietor of the business.
In the event of the death of the proprietor of a
proprietary concern, it is the legal representatives of
the proprietor who alone can sue or be sued in
respect of the dealings of the proprietary business.
The provisions of Rule 10 of Order XXX which make
applicable the provisions of Order XXX to a
proprietary concern, enable the proprietor of a
proprietary business to be sued in the business
names of his proprietary concern. The real party who
is being sued is the proprietor of the said business.
The said provision does not have the effect of
24 Crl.Appeal.No.424/2024converting the proprietary business into a partnership
firm. The provisions of Rule 4 of Order XXX have no
application to such suit as by virtue of Order XXX Rule
10 the other provisions of Order XXX are applicable to
a suit against the proprietor of proprietary business
“insofar as the nature of such case permits”. This
means that only those provisions of Order XXX can be
made applicable to proprietary concern which can be
so made applicable keeping in view the nature of the
case”
In view of the nature of the case, the same has been
reiterated in Raghu Lakshminarayanan V/s. Fine Tubes, 2007
(5) SCC 103.
27. Further, Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in H.N.Nagaraj Vs.
Suresh Lal Hiral Lal, reported in 2022 LIVELAW (Karnataka)
400, it is observed that in a proceeding under Sec.138 of N.I.
Act, the arraying of a proprietor as an accused or a proprietary
concern represented by the proprietor would be sufficient for
compliance u/Sec.138 of N.I. Act. The proprietor and the
proprietary concern are not required to be separately arrayed
as party accused.
25 Crl.Appeal.No.424/2024
28. Applying the above said principles to the present case and
before considering the point whether accused succeeded to
rebut presumptions and to establish his defence to the extent
of probabilities, it is just and necessary to accumulate
undisputed facts in this case.
29. It is not in dispute that bounced cheque belongs to the Bank
account of the accused. It is also not in dispute that,
signature appearing on the bounced cheque is the signature
of the accused is differ. It is also not in dispute that, the
cheque presented by the complainant came to be
dishonoured by the banker of the accused for the reason
stated in the dishonour memo.
30. To consider whether accused succeeded to rebut the
presumption and established defence to the extent of
probabilities, the accused has adduced evidence and marked
one document as Ex.D-1 i.e., Bank Statement on his behalf
and has failed to establish his defence that he repaid entire
borrowed amount. It is evident from the decision of Hon’ble
26 Crl.Appeal.No.424/2024
Supreme Court in Ashok Transport Agency and Hon’ble High
Court in H.N.Nagaraj case, as discussed supra, proprietorship
is not a separate legal entity like a Company, Partnership Firm
or Association. Proprietary business name need not be
arrayed as party. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly held
that the accused has not rebutted the presumption arising
U/Sec.139 of N.I Act.
31. In addition to that accused has not produced documents to
show that, accused filed complaint before jurisdictional Police
against complainant for misuse of his cheque. Accused
produced document at Ex.D.1-Bank Statement. But, which is
not helpful to the appellant. Appellant-accused did not
produce any documents to establish the fact that he has
repaid the cheque amount to the complainant. On the other
hand, the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the
complainant, it is proved that the accused issued the cheque
for legally recoverable debt.
27 Crl.Appeal.No.424/2024
32. This Court has compared reasons assigned by the learned
trial Court in the impugned judgment of conviction as
discussed above with the allegations made in the
memorandum of appeal. No grounds are made out in the
memorandum of appeal to interfere with the Impugned
judgment of conviction. The learned trial Court has rightly
passed the judgment and order of conviction.
33. So far as quantum of punishment is concerned, sentenced
him to pay fine of Rs.3,55,000/- and in default to pay the fine
amount, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months.
Out of total fine amount a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- ordered to be
paid to the complainant by way of compensation and balance
of Rs.5,000/- is defrayed to the state for expenses incurred in
the prosecution. Fine amount imposed is within the purview
of Section 138 of N.I Act. Appellant failed to show that
sentence imposed is exorbitant. Accused-appellant failed to
show that quantum of fine imposed is excessive. There is no
merit in the appeal. Order under appeal is sustainable in law.
28 Crl.Appeal.No.424/2024
Hence, interference of this Court is not necessary.
Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in the ‘Negative’.
34. POINT NO.2:- For the foregoing the reason I proceed to pass
the following:-
ORDER
This Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant-
accused under Section 374(3)(a) of Cr.P.C, is hereby
dismissed.
Consequently, the Order passed by the XII
A.C.M.M, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.10325/2021, dated: 07-
02-2024, is hereby confirmed.
Office is hereby directed to send the certified
copy of this Judgment to the learned trial Court along
with T.C.R.No order as to cost.
(Dictated to the Steno Gr-III directly on computer, typed by
him and corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open
court on this the 16th day of April, 2026.)(Raghavendra S. Channabasappa)
LXII Addl. C.C. & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore City.