Bangalore District Court
Jyothi Lakshmi vs Rajesh.M.B on 3 July, 2026
1
CC.No.7917/2023
KABC030132622023
Presented on : 29-03-2023
Registered on : 29-03-2023
Decided on : 03-07-2026
Duration : 3 years, 3 months, 5 days
IN THE COURT OF XII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
BENGALURU.
Dated this the 03rd day of July, 2026
:Present:
Smt. Dhanalakshmi.R
XII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bengaluru.
CC.No.7917/2023
Complainant : Jyothi Lakshmi
W/O Raghu Prasad,
Aged about 47 years,
represented by SPA holder
Raghu Prasad,
S/o Venkatesh Murthy,
Aged about 52 years,
Both R/o No.63/6, Suvee,
Sri Lakshmi Enclave,
Sasuveghatta, Achitnagar,
Bangalore-560107.
(By Sri.A.K.,- Advocate)
V/s
Accused : 1. Rajesh. M.B.
Represented by
Siri Balaji Navanirmana Pvt Ltd.,
2
CC.No.7917/2023
No.1, 2nd Floor,
Amruthahalli Circle,
Amruthahalli Main Road,
Byatarayanapura,
Bengaluru-560092
2:Siri Balaji Navanirmana Pvt Ltd.,
Represented by Rajesh. M.B
No.1, 2nd Floor,
Amruthahalli Circle,
Amruthahalli Main Road,
Byatarayanapura,
Bengaluru-560092
(By Sri.K.V.R., - Advocate )
1. The date of : 15.02.2023
commission of the
offence
2. Date of the filing of : 12.03.2023
complaint
3. Name of the : Mr.Raghu Prasad
Complainant
4. Date of recording of 29.03.2023
evidence
5. Date of closing of : 17.11.2025
evidence
6. Offence Complained : 138 of NI Act
of
7. Opinion of the Accused No.1 and 2 are
Judge Convicted
8. Date of such order : 03.07.2026
for the following
3
CC.No.7917/2023
JUDGMENT
1. This case is registered under Section 200
of Cr.P.C based on the written complaint given by
the complainant against the accused for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter called
as NI Act for the purpose of brevity).
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as
under : –
The complainant and her husband were
searching for a property in and around Yalahanka.
At that time, the complainant saw the
advertisement through Magic Bricks and contacted
accused no.2 office, who has given the telephone
number of accused no.1. The accused no.1
representing the accused no.2 has agreed to sell
the property in site No.59, formed in the
Venkateshwara layout in the said Survey No.25
4CC.No.7917/2023
and he has agreed to develop the schedule
property by providing all the facilities. The sale
consideration was agreed to be Rs.34,00,000/-.
The complainant and her husband have paid
earnest money of Rs.14,00,000/- to the accused
persons. The complainant has paid accused No.1
Rs.2,000/- on 20.02.2022 by way of cash and
transferred Rs.8,000/- on 20.02.2022,
Rs.50,000/- on 07.03.2022, Rs.40,000/- on
08.03.2022, Rs.10,00,000/- on 11.03.2022 and
Rs.2,00,000/- on 15.03.2022 respectively. The
husband of the complainant has paid
Rs.1,00,000/- by way of cash to the accused
persons. Hence they have totally paid
Rs.14,00,000/- as an earnest money out of the
sale consideration amount of Rs.34,00,000/-. The
accused persons though have agreed to obtain sale
deed of the said property through the original
owner. But they failed to do so. Hence, the
5CC.No.7917/2023
complainant has asked the accused persons to
return the earnest money. One Manju Kiran on
behalf of accused No.2 company has issued two
cheques bearing number 813383 and cheque
bearing number 813384, both the cheques are
dated 11.06.2022 for sum of Rs.6,00,000/- each
and both the cheques are drawn on State Bank of
India, Coffee board layout, Kempapura Branch,
Bengaluru. As per the instruction of the said
Manju Kiran, when the complainant has presented
the said cheques for encashment through her
banker i.e. Indusind Bank Ltd. Sanjay Nagar
Branch, both the cheques came to be dishonoured
on 03.08.2022 with an endorsement as “funds
insufficient.
3. The complainant has brought to the
knowledge of the said Manju Kiran regarding the
dishonour of the cheques. At that time the accused
no.1 has issued a cheque for Rs.1,00,000/- in
6
CC.No.7917/2023
favour of the husband of the complainant and for
Rs.13,00,000/- he has issued two cheques bearing
number 000071 for Rs.6,00,000/- dated and
another cheque bearing number 000072 for
Rs.7,00,000/- and both the cheques are dated
02.02.2023 and are drawn on Kotak Mahindra
Bank, Padmanabha Nagara Branch, Bengaluru. As
per the instruction of the accused No.1, when the
complainant has presented the said cheques
through her banker, the said cheques also came to
be dishonored with an endorsement as “Funds
insufficient” on 15.02.2023. As such the
complainant has issued demand notice dt:
23.02.2023 to the accused persons calling upon
them to repay the cheques amount within 15 days
from the date of receipt of the said notice. Inspite
of receiving the said notice, the accused persons
have not repaid amount. Hence, the present
complaint.
7
CC.No.7917/2023
4. On filing of the complaint, cognizance of
the offence is taken and recorded the sworn
statement of the SPA holder of the complainant
and marked 17 documents as per Ex.P.1 to
Ex.P.17. The complainant has complied all the
statutory requirements under Sec.138 of N.I.Act.
Thereafter, the case is registered against the
accused persons and summons issued.
5. On service of summons, the accused No.1
representing accused no.2 has appeared through
his counsel and he was enlarged on bail. The
substance of accusation was read over and
explained to the accused No.1 in the language
known to him. As per the directions of Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in “Indian Bank
Association V/s Union of India & Others reported
in (2014) 5 SCC 590, this court has treated the
sworn statement of the SPA holder of the
complainant as her evidence. The statement of
8
CC.No.7917/2023
the accused was also recorded under Section 313
of Cr.P.C. The accused No.1 has denied the
incriminating evidence found against him as false
and stated nothing. On application filed by the
counsel for the accused under Section 145(2) of
NI Act, permission was accorded to cross examine
PW1. Accordingly, PW1 was cross examined by
learned counsel for the accused persons. The Pw1
has later further chief examined himself and
produced Ex.P20 to Ex.P25 documents. Accused
No.1 examined himself as DW1 and produced one
document as Ex.D1. During the cross-
examination of the accused the Ex.P18 and
Ex.P19 documents are confronted and produced
by the complainant.
6. Heard the Learned counsel for the both
sides. The learned counsel for the accused has
filed written arguments. Perused the records.
9
CC.No.7917/2023
7. The following points arise for
consideration:
POINTS
1) Whether the complainant proves
that the accused persons have
issued the cheques for the legally
recoverable debt as alleged by
her?
2) Whether the accused persons have
committed the offence punishable
under section 138 Act?
3) What Order or Sentence?
8. The above points are answered as under:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative,
Point No.2: In the Affirmative,
Point No.3: As per the final
order for the following:
R E A S O N S
9. POINT No. 1 and 2: This Court is of the
opinion that it need not repeat the entire
averments made in the complaint here also, as this
10CC.No.7917/2023
Court has already narrated the same at the
inception of this judgment.
10. In order to bring home a liability under
Section 138 of NI Act, 1881, following elements
must spring out from the averments in the
complaint and the evidence adduced by the
complainant, viz.
1. A person must have drawn a cheque on an
account maintained by him in a bank for
payment of a certain sum of money to
another person from out of that account for
the discharge of any legally enforceable
debt or liability;
2. The cheque has been presented to the bank
within a period of three months from the
date mentioned on the cheque or within the
period of its validity, whichever is earlier;
3. The cheque is returned by the bank unpaid
either because the amount of money
standing to the credit of the account is
insufficient to honour the cheque or that it
exceeds the amount arranged to be paid
from that account by an agreement made
with the bank;
4. The payee or the holder in due course of the
cheque makes a demand for the payment of
the said amount of money by giving a
11CC.No.7917/2023
notice in writing to the drawer of the
cheque within 30 days of the receipt of
information by him from the bank
regarding the return of the cheque as
unpaid;
5. The drawer of such cheque fails to make
the payment to the payee or the holder in
due course of the cheque within 15 days of
the receipt of the notice.
11. It is well settled that whenever
complainant alleges that the accused has
committed the offence punishable under Section
138 of NI Act, obviously, the complainant has to
establish that there was a legally enforceable debt
and to discharge the said legally enforceable debt
the accused has issued the cheque and
subsequently the said cheque has been
dishonoured because of insufficiency of funds in
the account of the drawer/accused. Keeping in
view of these main and important ingredients of
Section 138 of NI Act, this Court proceeds to
discuss the evidence available on record.
12
CC.No.7917/2023
12. As been stated above, the SPA holder of
the complainant has examined himself as PW-1.
The PW-1 has filed affidavit in lieu of his
examination in chief under Section 145 of N I Act
reiterating the entire averments of the complaint.
13. The Ex.P.2 and Ex.P3 are the cheques
dt: 02.02.2023. On perusal of the said cheque
makes it clear that it supports the stand taken by
the complainant herein. The Ex.P4 & Ex.P5 are the
Bank endorsements disclose that the aforesaid
cheque has been dishonoured on 15.02.2023 for
the reason “Funds Insufficient” in the account of
the drawer. As per clause (a) of proviso to Section
138 of NI Act the cheque is to be presented for
encashment within three months or within the
period of its validity from the date on which the
cheques have issued. The Ex.P-2 and Ex.P3 bares
the date 02.02.2023 and it was presented on
15.02.2023 which is within the prescribed period.
13
CC.No.7917/2023
14. Further, as per clause (b) of proviso to
Section 138 of N I Act, the complainant is required
to issue legal notice, in writing, to the
drawer/accused making a demand for repayment
of the said cheque amount within 30 days from the
date of receipt of information about the dishonour
of the cheque. The Ex.P4 & Ex.P5 are the drawee’s
Bank endorsements dated 15.02.2023. The Ex.P-6
is the office copy of the legal notice dated
23.02.2023 and the Ex.P.7 to Ex.P9 are the postal
receipt dt: 23.02.2023. Therefore, the complainant
has issued legal notice within 30 days from the
date of knowledge of dishonor of cheque. Thus, the
provisions of clause (a) & (b) of proviso to Section
138 of N I Act have been complied with. The
Ex.P10 to Ex.P12 are the Postal acknowledgments
dt: 25.02.2023 and it shows that the legal notice
got issued by the complainant is served to the
accused persons. As per clause (c) of the proviso to
14
CC.No.7917/2023
Section 138 of NI Act, the drawer/accused is
entitled to have 15 days time to make the payment
of the cheque amount. Therefore, the complainant
was required to wait till 11.03.2023. According to
the complainant, no payment was made by the
drawer/accused within that period. Thus the
cause of action for filing the complaint arose on
12.03.2023. Further the clause (b) of Section 142
of N I Act makes it clear that the complaint has to
be filed within 30 days from the date of cause of
action arose. Thus this complaint was required to
be filed on or before 11.04.2023. The endorsement
made by this Court on the complaint reveals that
the complainant presented this complaint on
29.03.2023. Hence the complaint is well within the
time limit. and as such, this complaint is well
within the time limit. Therefore, this court is of the
considered opinion that that the complainant has
15
CC.No.7917/2023
complied all the necessary components of Section
138 of NI Act.
15. The complainant has stated that she
and her husband were in need of a property and at
that time they came to know about the accused
no.1 and 2 through an advertisement. Accordingly,
the accused no.1 on behalf of accused no.2
company has agreed to sell site No.59 which is
formed in Venkateswara layout in Survey No.25
and towards the said sale transaction, the
complainant and her husband have totally
transferred ₹ 14,00,000/- to the accused persons.
Since the registration of the sale deed could not be
materialized, the accused No.1 for the repayment
of the earnest money has issued Exhibit.P2 and
Exhibit.P3 cheques. It is pertinent to note that the
accused in his chief examination, has stated that
he does not know the complainant, but he knows
the husband of the complainant by name Prasad.
16
CC.No.7917/2023
He used to come to his office for the purchase of
the property. But the accused during his cross-
examination, has categorically admitted that as he
was working as a Sales Manager in the accused
no.2 company i.e. Sri Balaji Navanirmana Pvt.
Ltd., he used to tell the sales price to the
customers. Accordingly the complainant and her
husband used to come to his office and he used to
take them for visiting the sites and also he used to
show the development work around the site. Hence
the relationship between the parties regarding the
sale transaction is not in dispute. The accused
No.1 has not at all disputed that the cheques at
Exhibit.P2 and Exhibit.P3 does not belongs to his
account. The accused No.1 during his cross-
examination has categorically admitted that the
cheque at Exhibit.P2 and Exhibit.P3 belongs to his
account and he has admitted his signature in the
said cheques. But the accused No.1 has contended
17
CC.No.7917/2023
that he has only given signed blank cheques to the
husband of the complainant as a security purpose.
He has disputed the handwriting in the said
cheques are not written by him. At this stage this
court relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex
court reported in (2019) 2 SCR 24 between
Birsingh vs. Mukesh Kumar, wherein it is held
that
” if a signed blank cheque is voluntarily
presented to a payee, towards some
payment, the payee may fill up the amount
and other particulars. This in itself would
not invalidate the cheque and would attract
presumption under Section 139 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act. The onus would
still be on the accused to prove that the
cheque was not in discharge of a debt or
liability by adducing evidence.”
17. Hence as per the said judgment, mere
issuing of the blank cheque does not absolve the
liability of the accused under Section 138 of NI Act.
As stated earlier, it is not in dispute that the
cheque at Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 belongs to the accused
No.1 and the signature in the said cheque is also
18
CC.No.7917/2023
signed by the accused No.1. Hence the execution of
the cheque as per Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 is not in
dispute. Hence the presumption under Section 118
of the NI Act that the cheque in question was
drawn for consideration and the presumption
under Section 139 of the NI Act that the holder of
the cheque received the said cheque in discharge of
a legally enforceable debt or liability arises against
the accused.
18. The accused persons in order to rebut
the said presumption, have cross examined the
SPA holder of the complainant at length and also
examined himself as DW1 and produced
Exhibit.D1 document. On perusal of the oral and
documentary evidence adduced by both the
parties, it is not in dispute that accused no.1 was
working as a Sales Manager in the accused no.2
company. Further it is also not in dispute that
there was a sale transaction held between the
19
CC.No.7917/2023
complainant, her husband and the accused
persons regarding the purchase of site bearing
No.59 formed in the Venkateswara layout in
Survey No.25 of Shamarajapura Village, Yelahanka
hobli, Bangalore North Taluk.
19. The accused No.1 has taken a contention
that the legal notice issued by the complainant as
per Exhibit.P6 is not duly served on him. It is
pertinent to note that the complainant has issued
legal notice as per Exhibit.P6 to the accused no.1
and 2 and also to another person by name Manju
Kiran. As per the postal acknowledgments at
Exhibit.P10 to Exhibit.P12, it is to be seen that as
per Exhibit.P10 and Ex .P12, the said legal notice
is duly received by the accused no.1 and 2 for the
address mentioned in the postal acknowledgment.
No doubt in the postal acknowledgment at Ex.P12
there is no seal on signature for having received
the said notice by the accused
20
CC.No.7917/2023
no.2. But in the postal acknowledgment at
Exhibit.P10 which is issued in the name of
accused no.1 there is a signature. But the accused
has simply denied his signature. It is pertinent to
note that the accused No.1 except stating that he
has not received the legal notice issued by the
complainant, but he has not stated as to where he
was residing as on the date of service of notice.
The accused No.1 has not produced any
documents before the court to show that he has
not resided in the address mentioned in the legal
notice at Exhibit.P6. As per Section 27 of the
General Clauses Act 1897, once a party properly
posts letter by registered post to a proper address,
it establishes a legal presumption that service of a
documents by register post is effective, unless
evidence proves otherwise. At this stage this court
relies upon the Judgment reported in (2014) 8
21
CC.No.7917/2023
SCR 880 between M/s. Ajith Sheets Ltd. v. K.
Gopalakrishnaya, wherein it is held that,
“as per Section 114 of the Evidence Act,
which enables the Court to presume that in
the common course of natural events, the
communication would have been delivered at
the address of the addressee, Section 27 of
the General Clauses Act gives rise to a
presumption that service of notice has been
effected when it is sent to the correct address
by registered poster. It is not necessary to
aver in the complaint that in spite of the
return of the notice unserved, it is deemed to
have been served or the addressee is deemed
to have knowledge of the notice. Unless and
until contra is proved by the addressee,
service of notice is deemed to have been
effected at the time at which the letter would
have been delivered in the ordinary course of
business.”
20. The above said judgment is aptly
applicable to this case as the address of the
accused mentioned in the complaint, Legal Notice
22
CC.No.7917/2023
at Ex.P6 and Postal acknowledgments at Ex.P10 to
Ex.P12 are of the same address which is not at all
denied by the accused No1. Hence the burden
shifts to the accused to prove the non-receipt of
the notice. But the accused No1 except bare denial
that he has not received the notice, has not lead
any evidence to show as to where he has resided
as on the date of service of notice at Ex.P6. Such
being the case, the contention of the accused
persons that the legal notice at Ex.P6 is not served
on them to the address mentioned in Ex.P10 to
Ex.P12 cannot be accepted.
21. The accused persons have also taken a
defence that the complainant had no financial
capacity to lend sum of ₹ 14,00,000/- to the
accused persons. It is pertinent to note that
though accused persons have questioned the
financial capacity of the complainant at one
stretch, but on the other stretch accused No.1 has
23
CC.No.7917/2023
stated that he has borrowed hand loan of
₹ 47,000/- from the husband of the complainant
and the said amount is transferred to his account.
He has also produced his Bank statement as per
Exhibit.D1. It is pertinent to note that the PW1
has produced the Bank statement of the
complainant at Exhibit.P20 and Ex.P21 and also
produced his Bank statement as per Exhibit.P22
and 23 respectively which shows the transfer of
the amount as stated by the complainant in her
complaint. Further it is to be seen that as per
Exhibit.P10, accused no.1, inspite of receiving the
legal notice at Exhibit.P6, has not given any reply
challenging the financial capacity of the
complainant. At this stage this court relies upon
the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex court reported in
(2022) 6 SCC 735 between Tedhi Singh v. Narayan
Das Mahant, wherein it is held that the
complainant need not show in first his financial
24
CC.No.7917/2023
capacity, unless accused sets up case questioning
complainant’s capacity in reply to statutory notice.
22. At this stage, this Court also relies upon
the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported
in (2023) 16 SCC 125 between Rajaram since
deceased through LRs vs. Marudachalam, since
deceased through LRs. wherein it is held that the
presumption under Section 118 and 139 of NI Act
can be rebutted by the accused, examining the
income tax officer and bank officials of the
complainant/drawee. As per the above said
judgments when the accused has not examined
any official before the court and also not given
reply to the statutory notice by questioning the
complainant’s financial capacity to lend the
amount, the contention of the accused persons
that the complainant had no wherewithal to pay
the earnest money of Rs.14,00,000/- to the
25
CC.No.7917/2023
accused persons does not survive for
consideration.
23. The accused persons have taken a
contention that the complainant has not made
Manju Kiran as a party to the complaint. It is
pertinent to note that no doubt the complainant
has stated that for the repayment of the earnest
money on behalf of the accused no.2 one Manju
Kiran has issued two cheques as per Exhibit.P13
and Ex.P14 respectively and on dishonour of the
said cheques, the accused no.1 has issued
Exhibit.P2 and P3 cheques respectively. Further as
per Exhibit.P6, the legal notice is issued to the
said Manju Kiran also. But it is pertinent to note
that the complainant has stated that since the
cheques at Exhibit.P13 and P14 have become
invalid cheques, the accused no.1 has issued
cheques on behalf of accused no.2 company as per
Exhibit.P2 and P3. It is to be seen that Manju
26
CC.No.7917/2023
Kiran is not a signatory to the cheques at Ex.P2
and Ex.P3.,Further it is not in dispute that the
accused No1 working as a Sales Manager in the
accused No.2 company. Hence the contention of
the accused persons that Manju Kiran is not made
as a party to the complaint does not survive for
consideration.
24. As stated above, as per the oral and
documentary evidence lead by both the parties, it
is not in dispute that the accused no.1 is the Sales
Manager of the accused no.2 company. It is also
not in dispute that he used to take the
complainant and his husband for visiting the site
and also regarding the development in and around
the said site. It is also not in dispute that there
was a development agreement between the
complainant and the accused persons as per
Exhibit.P17. As stated above, the issuance of the
cheques as per Exhibit.P2 and P3 is not in dispute
27
CC.No.7917/2023
and also the accused No.1 has not disputed his
signature in the cheques at Exhibit P2 and P3. The
complainant has produced the development
agreement as per Exhibit.P17, which is dated
12.03.2023. But as rightly contented by the
learned counsel for the accused, the said stamp
paper is purchased on 28.03.2022. But as stated
above the sale transaction between parties is not
in dispute.
25. It is to be seen that the accused has
cross examined the SPA holder of the complainant
who examined himself as PW1 at length on
22.12.2023, 27.08.2024, 05.11.2024 respectively.
Later, the PW1 has lead his further examination-
in-chief and produced Exhibit.P20 to Exhibit.P25
documents. Based on the said documents, again
the PW1 was subjected to further cross-
examination on 05.08.2025. During the cross-
examination of PW1, dated 27.08.2024, the
28
CC.No.7917/2023
accused has simply taken a contention that the
two cheques pertaining to the accused No.1 as per
Exhibit.P2 and Exhibit.P3 have been misused by
the complainant. But it is not suggested to the
PW1 as to for what purpose the accused No.1 has
issued the cheques and how it has been misused
by the complainant. For the sake of clarity the
same is extracted as under;
”…ಆರೋಪಿತನಿಗೆ ಸೇರಿದ ನಿಪಿ.2 ಮತ್ತು 3 ಚೆಕ್ಕುಗಳನ್ನು
ದುರುಪಯೆಾೕಗ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡು ದೂರು ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ
ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ”.
26. Further during the cross examination of
PW1 dated 05.11.2024, the accused No.1 has
suggested to the Pw1 that he has issued Ex.P2 and
Ex.P3 cheques as a security purpose and the said
cheques have been misused by the complainant.
The said suggestion is denied by the PW1. For the
sake of clarity, the said line is extracted as under
“”ನಿಪಿ.2 ಮತ್ತು ನಿಪಿ.3 ಚೆಕ್ಕುಗಳನ್ನು ಆರೋಪಿತ
ಭದ್ರತೆಗೆಂದು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ಈ 02
29CC.No.7917/2023
ಚೆಕ್ಕುಗಳನ್ನು ನಾನು ದುರುಪಯೇಾಗ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡು
ಬ್ಯಾಂಕಿಗೆ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ”.
27. It is also pertinent to note that the
accused during the cross examination of PW1 on
05.11.2021 has taken a contention that there was
no transaction between the complainant and
accused no.1. But there was a transaction between
the complainant and accused no.2 and regarding
the same, the cheques at Exhibit P13 to 14 are
issued by Manju Kiran on behalf of the accused
no. 2 company. As stated above, after the three
times of cross-examination of PW1, the PW-1 has
lead his further chief examination by producing
the bank statement of the complainant and a bank
statement of PW1 and the receipts given by the
accused no. 2 as per Exhibit P20 to P25
respectively. The accused No.1, during the cross-
examination of PW1 dated 05.08.2021, has
altogether taken a different stand that the
30
CC.No.7917/2023
accused no.1 for his personal problems has
borrowed ₹ 40,000/-, ₹ 50,000/- and ₹ 8,000/-
from the complainant and the said amount has
been transferred by the complainant to his
personal account. Further it is suggested to PW-1
that he is unaware of the personal transaction
between the complainant and accused no. 1. For
the sake of clarity the same is extracted as under.
”1ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿ ತನ್ನ ವೈಯಕ್ತಿಕ ತೊಂದರೆಯ ಸಲುವಾಗಿ
ಪಿರ್ಯಾದಿಯ ಬಳಿ ಹಣ ಕೇಳಿದ್ದು, ಅದರ ಸಲುವಾಗಿ ರೂ.40
ಸಾವಿರ ಮತ್ತು 50 ಸಾವಿರ ಹಣ ಹಾಗೂ ರೂ.8 ಸಾವಿರ
ಮೆಾತ್ತವನ್ನು ಪಿರ್ಯಾದಿಯು, 1ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಯ ವೈಯಕ್ತಿಕ
ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್ ಖಾತೆ ವರ್ಗಾಯಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ.
ಪಿರ್ಯಾದಿ ಮತ್ತು 1ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಯ ನಡುವಿನ ವೈಯಕ್ತಿಕ
ಸಾಲದ ಕುರಿತಂತೆ ನನಗೆ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಇಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ.
ರೂ.40 ಸಾವಿರ ಮತ್ತು 50 ಸಾವಿರ ಹಣ ಹಾಗೂ ರೂ.8 ಸಾವಿರ
ಮೆಾತ್ತಕ್ಕೂ ಹಾಗೂ ಪಿರ್ಯಾದಿನಲ್ಲಿ ನಮೂದಿಸಿರುವ
ವ್ಯವಹಾರಕ್ಕೂ ಯಾವುದೆ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಇಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ”.
28. The accused, who has examined himself
as DW1, has altogether taken different defence
that he does not know the complainant, but he
31
CC.No.7917/2023
knows the husband of the complainant by name
Prasad who is her SPA holder, as he used to come
to their office regarding the purchase and sale of
the site. At that time, he has borrowed ₹ 47,000/-
as a hand loan from the husband of the
complainant on 27.12.2022. At that time, he has
taken his three cheques as a security purpose.
Further he has stated that he did not have the
authority to issue cheques on behalf of the
accused no. 2 company. Further he has stated
that in the month of February 2023 itself he has
repaid the entire hand loan amount by way of
cash. In spite of repayment of the entire hand loan
amount the husband of the complainant i.e. PW1
has not returned his cheques and by misusing the
same, he has filed false case against him. The
accused no.1 has further lead his examination in
chief on 16.10.2025, wherein he has further
deposed that due to his personal problems, he has
32
CC.No.7917/2023
requested the husband of the complainant by
name Raghuprasad an amount of ₹ 1,00,000 in
the month of February 2022. At that time, said
Raghuprasad by stating that he does not possess
the amount, he has transferred an amount of ₹
90,000 from the account of one Jyothilakshmi and
he has paid ₹ 8,000 by way of cash. Later the
accused No.1 has repaid ₹ 1,00,000 to the said
Raghuprasad. Again in the month of December
2022 the accused no.1 has requested the said
Raghuprasad for hand loan of ₹ 50,000. At that
time he has transferred ₹ 40,000 from his account.
For the said amount he has taken his three signed
Blank cheques. After 3 months the accused No.1
has repaid ₹ 50,000 by way of cash to the said
Raghuprasad. But without returning his cheques
he has filed false case against him.
29. It is pertinent to note that as stated
above, the accused no.1 has cross examined PW1
33
CC.No.7917/2023
on 4 times. But not even the single time, the
accused no.1 has suggested to PW1 that he has
borrowed an amount of ₹ 47,000/- from him on
27.12.2022 and he has issued his 3 cheques as a
security purpose. Only during his chief
examination he has taken a contention and in
further chief examination he has improved his
version. If as per the case of the accused, if at all
he has repaid the entire hand loan amount to PW1
i.e., the husband of the complainant in the month
of 02.02.2023 itself, then why he has not taken
any action against PW1 i.e. the husband of the
complainant for not returning the cheques
remained unanswered. Further even after the
appearance of the accused no. 1 before this court,
he has also not taken any action against the
complainant also for the alleged misuse of the
cheque which is said to be given to her husband.
The accused no.1 has not taken any positive
34
CC.No.7917/2023
action like filing police complaint or issuing a Legal
notice or filing the civil proceedings in respect of
the alleged misuse of the cheque.
30. As stated above, the accused no.1, though
earlier stated that he does not know the
complainant, but during his cross examination he
has admitted that she used to come to his office
along with her husband i.e. PW1 for visiting the
sites and he himself used to take them for the site
visit. and also to show the development work in
and around the site. The accused no.1 has taken
inconsistance defence i.e., during the cross
examination of PW-1 that, accused no.1 he has
borrowed loan from the complainant, whereas
during his examination in chief the accused no.1
has deposed that, he has borrowed hand loan from
the PW-1 i.e., the husband of the complainant.
The accused no.1 during his further examination
in chief has taken a defence that, for the hand
35
CC.No.7917/2023
loan borrowed from the husband of the
complainant, the husband of the complainant
transferred amount from the Bank account of the
complainant. The accused no.1 though taken a
defence that for the hand loan transaction of ₹
47,000 between the husband of the complainant
and himself he has issued three blank cheques as
a security purpose. But he fails to prove his
defence.
31. The learned counsel for the accused has
relied upon the following citations;
1. (2008) 4 SCC 54 between Krishna
Janardhan Bhatt v/s Dattatraya G. Hegde.
2. (2019) 5 SCC 418 between Baslingappa
v/s Mudibasappa.
32. This Court has carefully gone through
the above two judgments in detail. But the ratio
laid down in the above two judgments does not
come to the aid of the accused no.1 and 2 in this
36
CC.No.7917/2023
case, as the accused no.1 has failed to prove his
defence that he has issued Exhibit P2 and Exhibit
P3 cheques as a security for the hand loan
transaction between the husband of the
complainant and himself. It is also pertinent to
note that the accused no.1 has not stated as to
why for an amount of ₹ 47,000, he has issued
three cheques as a security purpose remain
unanswered. The accused no.1 even remotely also
not made any suggestion to PW1 regarding the
third cheque which is said to be issued to him as a
security purpose for the hand loan transaction.
33. As stated above the accused no..1 has
not at all disputed that, the cheque at Ex.P2 and
Ex.P.3 does not belong to his account and he has
also not disputed his siganture in the said cheque.
As admitted by the accused no.1 he was working
as a sales Manager at accused no.2 company. It is
not the case of accused no.1 that, he has not at all
37
CC.No.7917/2023
related to accused no.2 company. The accused
persons have to rebut the presumption under
Section 139 of the NI Act, the standard of proof for
doing so is that of “Preponderance of probability”.
Therefore if the accused is able to raise a probable
defence which creates doubts about the existence
of the legally enforceable debt or liability, the
prosecution can fail. But it is to be seen that in
this case the accused has failed to rebut the
presumption. Hence, for the above said reasons it
is held that the accused has committed an offence
punishable under Section 138 of the Act. As such,
Point No.1 and 2 are answered in the AFFIRMATIVE.
138 of NI Act.
34. Point No.3 : Negotiable Instruments Act was
enacted to bring credibility to the cheque. The very
purpose of the enactment is to promote the use of
the Negotiable Instrument, while to discourage the
issuance of the cheque without having sufficient
38
CC.No.7917/2023
funds in the account. Such being the case, the
intention of the legislature is that complainant be
suitably compensated while the accused be
punished for his act.
35. When compensation is awarded
enforcement of the same come into question. There
is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure
for imposing default sentence for enforcing the
payment of compensation. In this regard, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in
2002 (2) SCC 420 between Suganthi Suresh
Kumar Vs. Jagadeeshan was pleased to hold that
“the court may enforce the order by imposing
sentence in default”. The same is reaffirmed in
latest decision in 2010 AIR SCW 3398 between
K.A.Abbas H.S.A. Vs Sabu Joseph. Therefore, it is
deemed fit to provide default sentence in order to
enforce the payment of compensation. Ex.P.2 and
Ex.P.3 cheques are of the year 2023. Therefore, the
39
CC.No.7917/2023
complainant is deprived of the money that was
rightfully due to him for about 03 years.
Accordingly, it is deemed fit that a compensation
of Rs.15,36,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Thirty Six
Thousand only) be granted. It is to be seen that as
per the reportable judgment of the Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka in Crl.R.P.No.996/2016 dt:
09.07.2025 between M/s.Banavathy and company
Vs. Maheer Electro Mech (P) Ltd., and to others the
Hon’ble High Court at paragraph No.21 has held
as under:
“while passing the order of the sentence
after determining the fine/Compensation
the court shall also pass an order to pay
future interest at the rate of 9% p.a on the
compensation amount payable to the
complainant by fixing time of one or two
months to deposit compensation amount
so that even if the matter is challenged
before the Session Court in appeal and
High Court in Revision the interest of the
complainant will be protected”.
36. Hence, as per the above judgment the
complainant is entitled for future interest at the
40
CC.No.7917/2023
rate of 9% p.a., on the compensation amount from
the date of judgment till its repayment. Further the
accused is directed to deposit the compensation
amount before this court within three months from
the date of this order. Accordingly, in the light of
above discussions, this court proceed to pass the
following:-
ORDER
Acting under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C.,
the accused No.1 and 2 are convicted for
the offence punishable under Section 138
of the NI Act and they are sentenced to
pay fine of Rs.15,36,000/- (Rupees Fifteen
Lakhs Thirty Six Thousand only) and in
default accused No.1 to undergo Simple
Imprisonment for a period of six months.If the fine amount is recovered a sum of
Rs.15,34,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs
Thirty Four Thousand only) is ordered to be
paid to the complainant by way of
compensation as per the provisions under
Section 357 of Cr.P.C. and the remaining
41CC.No.7917/2023
amount of Rs.2,000/- is to be appropriated
to the State.
The complainant is entitled for future
interest at the rate of 9% p.a., on the
compensation amount from the date of
judgment till its complete repayment.
The accused is directed to deposit the
compensation amount before this court
within three months from the date of this
order.
The Bail Bond and cash surety of the
accused No.1 shall stand canceled.
Supply a free copy of this Judgment to
the accused No.1.
(Dictated directly using mobile Adalath AI app, copied and computerized by the
stenographer, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Court on this 3rd
day July, 2026).
(Dhanalakshmi. R)
XII Addl. CJM, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURES
Witnesses examined for the Complainant:
PW.1 : Raghu Prasad
42
CC.No.7917/2023
Documents Ex.ed for the Complainant:
Ex.P.1 : Special Power of Attorney
Ex.P.2&3 : Cheques
Ex.P.4&5 : Memos of the Banker
Ex.P.6 : Copy of Legal Notice
Ex.P.7-9 : Postal Receipts
Ex.P.10-12 : Postal Acknowledgments
Ex.P.13&14 : cheques
Ex.P.15&16 : Memos of the Banker
Ex.P.17 : Development Agreement
Ex.P.18 : Certified copy of judgment of
CC.54692/19.
Ex.P19 : Xerox copy of two cheques Ex.P20-23 : Account Statements Ex.P24&25 : Receipts
Witnesses examined for the defence Accused:
DW.1 : Jyothi Lakshmi
Documents Exhibited for the defence Accused:-
Ex.D1 : Accused Bank Statement
(Dhanalakshmi. R)
XII Addl. CJM., Bengaluru.
43
CC.No.7917/2023
44
CC.No.7917/2023
03.07.2026
For Judgment
(Judgment pronounced in the open court
vide separate Order)
ORDER
Acting under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C.,
the accused No.1 and 2 are convicted for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of the
NI Act and they are sentenced to pay fine of
Rs.15,36,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Thirty
Six Thousand only) and in default accused
No.1 to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a
period of six months.
45
CC.No.7917/2023
If the fine amount is recovered a sum of
Rs.15,34,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Thirty
Four Thousand only) is ordered to be paid to
the complainant by way of compensation as
per the provisions under Section 357 of
Cr.P.C. and the remaining amount of
Rs.2,000/- is to be appropriated to the State.
The complainant is entitled for future
interest at the rate of 9percent p.a., on the
compensation amount from the date of
judgment till its complete repayment.
The accused is directed to deposit the
compensation amount before this court
within three months from the date of this
order.
The Bail Bond and cash surety of the
accused No.1 shall stand canceled.
Supply a free copy of this Judgment to the
accused No.1.
XII ACJM, Bengaluru
46CC.No.7917/2023
47CC.No.7917/2023
