Bangalore District Court
Kishore Kumar K vs R Ramachandra on 2 April, 2026
KABC030884082022
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE CITY
Dated this the 2nd day of April 2026
Present : SRI. GOKULA. K
B.A.LL.B.
XXV Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bangalore City.
C.C.No.37765/2022
Complainant : Sri Kishore Kumar K
Son of late K. Budha Naik,
Aged about 67 years,
residing at No. 114, First cross,
KEB Layout, Sanjay Nagara,
Bengaluru 560094.
(By AMT -Advocate )
V/s
Accused : 1. Sri R.Ramachandra
Son of Rangappa,
Aged about 54 years,
Residing at No. 1188, 9th Main,
11th A cross, Mahalakshmi Puram,
Bengaluru 560066.
2. Sri R.Ramachandra
Son of Rangappa,
Residing at No. 287, 5th cross
A. K. Street, Kurubarahalli
Mahalaxmi puram,
Bengaluru 560066
3. Sri R.Ramachandra
Manager, Canara bank,
2
C.C.No.37765/2022
Belluru branch
No. 121/A MR 53, Tumkur Main Road
Near Post Office, Belluru,
Mandya District 571418.
(By VKBM - Advocate )
Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty
Final Order: Accused is Acquitted
Date of judgment 02.04.2026
JUDGMENT
The complainant has filed the complaint under Section 200 of
Criminal Procedure Code against the accused for the offence
punishable under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The brief case of the complainant is as under:
That the complainant and the accused are close friends and
colleagues both working in Canara Bank. The accused being
well acquainted with the complainant requested the
complainant for financial assistance. The complainant has paid
a sum of ₹ 2,35,000/- on 13.11.2017 through Cheque No.
457638 to the account of the accused, a sum of ₹ 2,50,000/- on
13.11.2017 through Cheque No. 457637 to the account of the
accused, a sum of ₹ 4,70,000/- on 30.07.2018 by way of
account transfer to the accused, a sum of ₹ 2,00,000/- on
08.08.2018 by way of cash and cheque bearing number 309640,
a sum of ₹ 1,85,000/- on 18.06.2019, through Cheque No.
3
C.C.No.37765/2022168081, a sum of ₹ 49,900/- on 17.08.2021 through Cheque
No. 578340, a sum of ₹ 3,10,100/- on different occasions
through cash. Thus the complainant has paid totally a sum of
₹17,00,000/- It is stated that the complainant has transferred
said amount to the accused for domestic purpose and
purchasing property. It is pleaded that when the complainant
requested the accused to return said amount, towards
discharge of liability, the accused issued following cheques on
03-10-2022.
# a cheque bearing No.011044 for ₹.5,00,000/- dated
03.10.2022 drawn on Canara Bank, Chikkabidarakallu branch.
# a Cheque bearing No.091824 for ₹.2,00,000/-dated
03.10.2022 drawn on Canara Bank, Chikkabidarakallu branch.
# a Cheque bearing No. 011081 for ₹.2,00,000/- dated
03.10.2022 drawn on Canara Bank, Chikkabidarakallu branch.
# a cheque bearing No. 011084 for ₹.5,00,000/- dated
03.10.2022 drawn on Canara Bank, Chikkabidarakallu branch.
The above cheques were issued for a total sum of ₹.14,00,000/-.
The accused has promised to pay balance sum of ₹.3,00,000/-,
but he has not paid the same. It is stated that the complainant
has presented said cheques for collection through his bank
account with his banker Canara bank, Subramanya Nagara
Branch on 06.10.2022. It is stated that all the said cheques
4
C.C.No.37765/2022
returned with an endorsement “Funds Insufficient”, “Exceed
Arrangement” and “Payment stopped by drawer” on the same
day. Though the accused promised to repay the amount within
a week, the accused has not done so. Hence, the complainant
issued the legal notice dated 15.10.2022 through RPAD
demanding to pay the amount covered under the cheques. It is
stated that inspite of service of notice on 18.10.2022, the
accused failed to pay the claim amount to the complainant
within the statutory time and he has issued false reply dated
29.10.2022. Therefore, the accused has committed the offence
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore the
complainant has filed the complaint.
3. This case is initially filed before XV the ACJM, Bengaluru City
and it is transferred to this court vide orders of Hon’ble CJM
Bengaluru City bearing no. ADM I 22/2025 dated 02-12-2025.
4. On the basis of private complaint filed by the complainant,
the court has taken cognizance of offence and registered the
case in PCR No.16476/2022 and recorded sworn statement of
the complainant as PW 1 and got marked 17 documents as
Ex.P1 to Ex.P17. The court by considering the material on
record issued process under Section 204 of Cr.P.C by registering
the criminal case. In response to the process issued by the
court, the accused appeared before the court and he is released
5
C.C.No.37765/2022
on bail. The copy of the complaint is served to the accused along
with the summons as contemplated under Section 207 of
Criminal Procedure Code
5. The substance of the acquisition as provided under Section
251 of Cr.P.C is read over to the accused and plea is recorded.
The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. In view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in Indian Bank Association V/s Union of India and others
reported in AIR 2014 SCW 3463, the affidavit filed by the
complainant at the stage of taking cognizance and documents
marked is treated as evidence under section 145 of Negotiable
Instruments Act. The the application of the accused PW1 is
recalled for cross examination and he is subjected to cross
examination. The PW 1 has also produced additional documents
as Ex.P 18 to 24. After conclusion of evidence of the
complainant, the incriminating circumstances in the evidence of
PW 1 is read over to the accused and his statement under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C. recorded. The accused has denied the
same as false. The accused himself examined as DW 1 and got
marked 16 documents as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.16.
6
C.C.No.37765/2022
7. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the complainant and
arguments of learned counsel for the accused. Perused the
written arguments of the complainant and written arguments of
accused. Considered the law laid down in the decisions relied by
both the learned counsels and perused the material on record.
8. On the basis of the material on record the following points
arise for the consideration of this court :
1. Whether the complainant proves beyond all
reasonable doubt that the accused availed hand
loan of Rs.17,00,000/- from the complainant and
towards repayment of said legally recoverable
amount, the accused has issued 4 cheques
such as a cheque bearing No.011044 for
₹.5,00,000/-, a Cheque bearing No.091824 for
₹.2,00,000/-, a Cheque bearing No. 011081 for
₹2,00,000/-, a cheque bearing No. 011084 for
₹.5,00,000/- all are dated 03.10.2022 drawn on
Canara Bank, Chikkabidarakallu branch, in
favour of the complainant and on presentation of
the said cheques, through the complainant’s
banker, said cheques returned dishonored for the
reason “Funds Insufficient”, “Exceeds
Arrangement” and “Payment Stopped by Drawer”
and inspite of issuance of demand notice dated
15.10.2022 the accused has not complied the
demands in the notice and thus the accused has
committed an offence punishable under Section
138 of Negotiable Instruments Act?
7
C.C.No.37765/2022
2. What Order or Sentence ?
9. The findings of this court to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 In the Negative .
Point No.2 As per final order
for the following :
REASONS
10. POINT NO.1: To prove the case the complainant is examined
as PW-1 and in his evidence affidavit he has reiterated the
averments made in the complaint. The PW 1 has deposed that
complainant and the accused are close friends and colleagues
both working in Canara Bank. The accused being well
acquainted with the complainant requested the complainant for
financial assistance. The PW 1 has deposed that the
complainant transferred the funds to the joint account of
accused and his wife for a total sum of ₹.17,0,00,000/- as
follows –
# A sum of ₹ 2,35,000/- on 13.11.2017 through Cheque No.
457638 to the account of the accused.
# A sum of ₹ 2,50,000/- on 13.11.2017 through Cheque No.
457637 to the account of the accused,
# A sum of ₹ 4,70,000/- on 30.07.2018 by way of account
transfer to the accused.
8
C.C.No.37765/2022
# A sum of ₹ 2,00,000/- on 08.08.2018 by way of cash and
cheque bearing number 309640.
# A sum of ₹ 1,85,000/- on 18.06.2019, through Cheque No.
168081,
# A sum of ₹ 49,900/- on 17.08.2021 through Cheque No.
578340
# a sum of ₹ 3,10,100/- on different occasions through cash.
To prove transfer of said amount as above the complainant has
produced the statement of accounts of his bank account as
Exhibit P 17. The PW 1 has deposed that the complainant has
transferred said amount to the accused for domestic purpose
and purchasing property. He has also deposed that when the
complainant requested the accused to return said amount, and
towards discharge of liability, the accused issued following
cheques on 03-10-2022.
# a cheque bearing No.011044 for ₹.5,00,000/- dated
03.10.2022 drawn on Canara Bank, Chikkabidarakallu branch.
# a Cheque bearing No.091824 for ₹.2,00,000/-dated
03.10.2022 drawn on Canara Bank, Chikkabidarakallu branch.
# a Cheque bearing No. 011081 for ₹.2,00,000/- dated
03.10.2022 drawn on Canara Bank, Chikkabidarakallu branch.
9
C.C.No.37765/2022
# a cheque bearing No. 011084 for ₹.5,00,000/- dated
03.10.2022 drawn on Canara Bank, Chikkabidarakallu branch.
The PW 1 has proved all the above cheques as Exhibit P 1 to P
4.
The PW 1 has deposed that the above cheques were issued for a
total sum of ₹.14,00,000/-. The accused has promised to pay
balance sum of ₹.3,00,000/-, but he has not paid the same.
The PW 1 has deposed that the complainant has presented said
cheques for collection through his bank account with his
banker Canara bank, Subramanya Nagara Branch on
06.10.2022. It is stated that all the said cheques returned with
an endorsement “Funds Insufficient”, “Exceed
Arrangement”and “Payment stopped by drawer” on the same
day. The PW1 has produced said cheque dishonor memo’s as
Exhibit P 5 to Exhibit P 8. The PW 1 has deposed that though
the accused promised to repay the amount within a week , but
the accused has not done so. Therefore he has issued the legal
notice dated 15.10.2022 through RPAD demanding to pay the
amount covered under the cheques. The office copy of the
demand notice is produced as Exhibit P 9. He has also
produced the postal receipts as Exhibit P 10 to P 12, postal
acknowledgment as Exhibit P 13 and P 14. The returned postal
envolop as Exhibit P 15. The demand notice issued to two of the
10
C.C.No.37765/2022
address of the accused served and notice issued to one address
is returned unserved. It is stated that inspite of service of notice
on 18.10.2022, the accused failed to pay the claim amount to
the complainant within the statutory time and he has issued
false reply dated 29.10.2022. The PW 1 has produced the reply
notice issued by the accused as Exhibit P 17. The PW 1 has
deposed that inspite of service of notice the accused has not
paid the amount covered under the cheques and committed the
offfence. The complainant has also produced the ITR
acknowledgment for the year 2016-17 to 2021-22 as Exhibit P
18 to P 23 and certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence
Act as Exhibit P 24. .
11. Now it is proper to consider where the complainant has
complied all the statutory requirements for commission of
offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The
essential ingredients of section 138 and 142 of Negotiable
Instruments Act to be complied are i) drawing of the cheque by
the accused from his account ii) presentation of the cheque to
the bank with in the period of three months, iii) returning of the
cheque unpaid by the drawee bank iv) giving notice in writing to
the drawer of the cheque demanding of the payment of cheque
amount with in the period of 30 days, v) failure of the drawer to
make payment within the period of 15 days after receipt of the
11
C.C.No.37765/2022
demand notice and v) Presentation of the complaint within a
month by the complainant after expiry of 15 days of service of
notice to the accused. Therefore it is proper to consider whether
the statutory requirements for constituting the offence under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is complied by the
complainant.
12. The all the four cheques are dated 03.10.2022. Said
cheques are presented for collection and dishonored on
06.10.2022 for the reason “Funds Insufficient” and “Payment
Stopped by Drawer”. The demand notice is issued on
15.10.2022 and it is served on 18.10.2022. The accused has
declined to comply the demands in the notice by issuing Reply
notice on 29-10-2022. The complaint is filed before this court
on 15-11-2022 with in a month of denial, which is with in the
time provided under the statute.
13. The complaint has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme
Court reported in (1996) 2 SCC 739 between M/s. Electronics
Trade and Technology Development Corpn. Ltd., Secunderabad
v. M/s. Indian Technologists and Engineers (Electronics) Pvt.
Ltd. and another In this decision, Hon’ble Supreme Court has
held that
12
C.C.No.37765/2022
5. It would thus be clear that when a cheque is
drawn by a person on an account maintained by
him with the banker for payment of any amount
of money to another person out of the account for
the discharge of the debt in whole or in part or
other liability is returned by the bank with
endorsement like (1) in this case, ‘refer to the
drawer’ (2) ‘instructions for stoppage of the
payment’ and stamped (3) ‘exceeds arrangement’,
it amounts to dishonour within the meaning of
Section 138 of the Act. On issuance of the notice
by the payee or the Holder in due course after
dishonour, to the drawer demanding payment
within 15 days from the date of the receipt of
such a notice, if he does not pay the same, the
statutory presumption of dishonest intention,
subject to any other liability stands satisfied.
In view of the same, even though the cheque is dishonured for
the reason payment stopped by drawer, penal provisions of
Section 138 of NI Act will attract on failure of the accused to
comply the demands in the statutory notice. The accused has
admitted that all the cheques Exhibit P1 to Exhibit P4 are
drawn from his bank account. He has also admitted that he has
issued cheques to the complainant and admitted his signatures
on Exhibit P1 to Exhibit P4 cheques. The accused has also
admitted that he has issued Stop payment instructions to the
banker. The accused has also not disputed the fact that there is
13
C.C.No.37765/2022
no sufficient funds in his account as on the date of presentation
of the cheques. The accused has also admitted service of the
demand notice.
14. Thus the complainant has complied all the statutory
requirements under Section 138 and 142 of Negotiable
Instrument Act. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for
presumption under 118 and under Section 139 of Negotiable
Instrument Act. The provisions of Section 118 provides for
presumption as to negotiable Instruments which reads as
follows :
118- Presumptions as to negotiable
Instruments – Until the contrary is proved,
the following presumptions shall be made –
(a) of consideration – that every negotiable
Instrument was made or drawn for
consideration, and that every such
instrument, when it has been accepted,
indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was
accepted, indorsed, negotiated or
transferred, was accepted, indorsed,
negotiated or transferred for consideration;
(b) as to date – that every negotiable
instrument bearing a date was made or
drawn on such date; (c) ………………
The provisions of Section 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act
reads as under:-
14
C.C.No.37765/2022
139- Presumption in favour of holder – It
should be presumed, unless the contrary is
proved, that the holder of a cheque received
the cheque, of the nature referred to in
section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in
part, of any debt or other liability.
15. The complainant has relied on the decision of Hon’ble
Supreme court in a decision reported in (2010) 11 SCC 411
between Rangappa V/s Sri Mohan has held that –
The presumption mandated by Section 139
of the act does indeed include the existence
of a legally enforceable debt or liability.
It is also observed that
Section 139 of the Act is an example of a
reverse onus clause that has been included
in furtherance of the legislative objective of
improving the credibility of negotiable
instrument. It is also held that in such a
scenario, the test of proportionality should
guide the construction and interpretation of
reverse onus clauses and the defendant
caused cannot be expected to discharge an
unduly high slandered or proof.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also observed that
Ordinarily in cheque bounce cases, what the courts
have to consider is whether the ingredients of the
offence enumerated in Section 138 of the Act have
15
C.C.No.37765/2022
been met and if so, whether the accused was able to
rebut the statutory presumption contemplated by
Section 139 of the Act.
It is also observed that
Bare denial of the passing of the consideration
apparently does not appear to be any defence.
Something which is probable has to be brought on
record for getting the benefit of shifting the onus of
proving to the plaintiff. To disprove the presumption
the defendant has to bring on record such facts and
circumstances upon consideration of which the
Court may either believe that the consideration did
not exist or its non-existence was so probable that a
prudent man would, under the circumstances of
the case, shall act upon the plea that it did not
exist.
Therefore, in view of settled principles of law, it is now
necessary to consider the fact whether the accused is able to
rebut the presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable
Instruments Act.
16. In this case, the accused has issued reply at the initial
stage of the case when the complainant has issued the demand
notice. The accused has admitted that the complainant and
accused are known to each other and they were working in
Canara Bank. The accused has also admitted that he used to
avail financial assistance from the complainant on several
16
C.C.No.37765/2022
occasions. But it is the case of the accused is that he has repaid
all the loan availed from the complainant from time to time. He
is not having any outstanding due amount payable to the
complainant. There is no legal liability to pay any amount to the
complainant. It is the defence of the accused is that the
complainant has obtained totally 4 cheques and 2 pro-notes for
the purpose of security of the loan lent by the complainant to
the accused. It is the case of the accused that in the month of
November 2017 he has issued two cheques and one pro-note
and in July 2018 he has issued other two cheques and one pro-
note to the complainant for the purpose of security. It is also
case of the accused that in spite of repayment of entire due
amount the complainant is demanding for higher rate of interest
and by misusing the cheques issued for the purpose of security
the complainant has filed this case.
17. The accused has cross examined PW1. In the cross
examination of PW1, PW1 has categorically deposed that the
accused has not repaid a single rupee to him. The PW1 has
admitted in the cross-examination that he has obtained four
cheques from the accused for the purpose of security. But as
per the pleadings it is the case of the complainant that on
03.10.2022 the accused has issued Exhibit P1 to Exhibit P4
cheques to the complainant. In this regard, the learned counsel
17
C.C.No.37765/2022
for the accused has argued that on perusal of Exhibit P1 to
Exhibit P4 cheques, they are not in serial numbers. If a prudent
man who issues four cheques at a same time will issue the
cheques from same cheque book with continuing cheque
numbers, but on perusal of Exhibit P1 to Exhibit P4 cheques,
they are not in continuing number. The cheque numbers of
Exhibit P 1 to P 4 are 011044, 091824, 01081 and 01084. Thus
it shows that all the cheques are not drawn from the same
cheque book and it is from different cheque book. Therefore,
Learned counsel for the accused has argued that it is not
probable to believe that all the four cheques are issued by the
accused on 03.10.2022 to the complainant. On the other hand,
the cheques are issued for the purpose of security in the month
of November 2017 and in July 2018.
18. As per the case of the complainant on 03.10.2022, the
complainant visited to the house of the accused at Mahalaxmi
puram, Bangalore and at that time the accused has issued
these four cheques. But the accused has taken the contention
that on 03.10.2022 he was not at Bangalore but he was working
at Belluru branch of Mandya District. To establish that on
03.10.2022 he was working at Belur branch and he attended for
duty, he has produced the attendance register as Exhibit D13
Attendance Register, which shows that on 03.10.2022, the
18
C.C.No.37765/2022
accused on duty at Bellaru Branch, Mandya District, The
accused has also produced quarters allotment letter as Exhibit
P14 and his transfer order as Exhibit P16. These documents
also show that at the relevant point of time, the accused was
working at Belluru branch of Canara Bank and he was residing
in the quarters allotted by the bank. This evidence placed on
record creates a reasonable doubt about the contention of the
complainant, that the accused has issued the cheques on
03.10.2022 at his house at Mahalakshmipuram, Bengaluru.
19. Learned counsel for the complainant during the course of
arguments has placed his reliance on the decision of Hon’ble
Supreme Court reported in (2019) 4 SCC 197 between Bir Singh
v. Mukesh Kumar. In this decision, Hon’ble Supreme Court has
held that
34. 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. The onus would still
be on the accused to prove that the cheque was not in
discharge of debt or liability by adducing evidence.
36. Even if blank Cheque lief voluntarily signed and
handed over by the accused, which is towards some
19
C.C.No.37765/2022
payment, would attract presumption under Section
139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the absence
of any cogent evidence to show that cheque was not
issued in discharge of a debt.
Thus, the Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that
even if it is considered that the cheque was issued towards
security by the accused, and the complainant himself filled the
contents of the cheque and presented for collection, it will
attract the offence under Section 138 of NI Act and the
complainant is entitled for the presumption under Section 139
of NI Act about existence of legally recoverable debt. Therefore
the complainant has argued that on the admission of PW1 that
the cheque is issued by the accused for the purpose of security
itself is not a ground to deny the relief.
20. To prove that accused has repaid the loan availed from the
complainant, he has produced his bank statement, payment
receipt etc as Exhibit D1 to Exhibit D 12. The accused has
contended that he has repaid the amount from time to time to
the complainant and on the instructions of the complainant to
the daughter of the complainant by name Ananya. The PW1 in
the cross-examination has admitted that he is having a
daughter by name Ananya. On appreciation of the Exhibit D1 to
20
C.C.No.37765/2022
Exhibit D12 statement of accounts, it appears that the accused
has transferred a sum of ₹ 15,000/- on 15.09.2018 to
complainant as per Exhibit D1, a sum of ₹ 21,000/- on
01.07.2019 to Ananya as per Exhibit D2, a sum of ₹ 5,000/- on
23.01.2020 to complainant, a sum of ₹ 15,000/- on 12.02.2020
to complainant, a sum of ₹ 15,000/- on 17.02.2020 to
complainant and a sum of ₹ 15,000/- on 17.02.2020 to the
account of the complainant as per Exhibit D3. Further, the
accused has transferred a sum of ₹ 6,000/- on 29.05.2021 as
per Exhibit D4, a sum of ₹ 2,000/- on 30.03.2022 as per
Exhibit D5, a sum of ₹ 7,500/- on 02.01.2021 as per Exhibit
D6, a sum of ₹ 5,000/- on 25.04.2022 as per Exhibit D7, a
sum of ₹ 5,000/- on 03.02.2021 as per Exhibit D8. a sum of ₹
6,000/- on 28.04.2021 as per Exhibit D9, a sum of ₹ 15,000/-
on 18.02.2019 as per Exhibit D10, a sum of ₹ 21,000/- on
19.08.2019 as per Exhibit D11, The accused has transferred a
sum of ₹ 95,000/- on 04.04.2018 as per Exhibit D12 to the
account of Ananya and a sum of ₹ 1,00,000/- on 23.08.2018 to
the account of Ananya, and a sum of ₹ 2,71,000/- on
05.04.2019 to the account of Ananya, a sum of ₹ 15,000/- on
16.04.2019 to the account of Ananya, a sum of ₹ 6,000/- on
06.08.2019 to the account of Ananya, A sum of ₹ 21,000/- to
the account of the complainant and a sum of ₹ 28,500/- on
21
C.C.No.37765/2022
14.01.2020 to the account of the complainant. In total as per
the above transactions the Accused has paid a sum of ₹
6,84,000/- to the account of the complainant and to the
account of the daughter of the complainant by name Ananya.
The complainant has not disputed receipt of this amount to his
account and to the account of his daughter Ananya. The
complainant has taken the contention that the transactions
between the accused and his daughter Ananya is no way related
to the transactions of the complainant. But to substantiate that
the transactions between the accused and Ananya is no way
related to the transactions of the complainant with the accused,
the complainant has not examined his daughter Ananya and he
has not disclosed the nature of the transactions between his
daughter Ananya and the accused.
21. The accused has also taken the contention that he has paid
a sum of ₹ 3,20,000/- by way of cash on 01.09.2018 and a sum
of ₹ 2,00,000/- by way of cash on 16.09.2019. But the
complainant has denied receipt of said amount by way of cash.
The accused has produced his bank statement to show
withdrawals from his account on the relevant dates. But there is
no acknowledgment by the complainant to show that the
amount withdrawn is paid to the complainant. To substantiate
22
C.C.No.37765/2022
such repayment the accused has not produced any material on
record.
22. Thus, upon considering these payments made by the
accused to the complainant and the daughter of the
complainant, which is admitted by the complainant for a total
sum of ₹ 6,84,000/- substantially proves repayment made by
the accused. Even for the sake of argument it is presumed that
the accused has received a sum of ₹ 17,00,000/- from the
complainant, he has made payment of ₹ 6,84,000/- as admitted
by the complainant. Therefore if we deduct a sum of ₹
6,84,000/- from the outstanding amount of ₹ 17,00,000/- the
balance amount payable ₹ 10,16,000/-. But the amount
involved in the cheque is for ₹ 14,00,000/-. Therefore, it is very
clear from this evidence placed on record that there is no legally
enforceable debt or liability to the tune of the cheque amount
for a sum of ₹ 14,00,000/-. It is much lesser than the said
amount. It is also to be noted that the accused has not admitted
receipt of ₹.17,00,000/- from the complainant. He has only
admitted receipt of Rs.10,04,900/-. The complainant has also
not produced any documents to show that he has paid a sum of
₹.2,00,000/-, ₹.1,85,000/- and ₹3,10,100/- which has been
denied by the accused. It is also pertinent to note that during
the cross-examination, the PW1 has deposed that he has not
23
C.C.No.37765/2022
received a single Rupee from the accused. This evidence of PW1
very clearly establishes that he has suppressed the material
facts before this court while appearing before this court. Only
when the accused has produced the bank statement showing
that the accused has transferred the amount to the account of
the complainant, he has admitted such payments made by the
accused by account transfer or by deposit to his account. This
conduct of the complainant also sufficient to probabilise that
the case put forward by the complainant is not true and he has
suppressed the material facts before this court while appearing
before the court. This defence is sufficient to probablise that
existence of debt to the extent of the cheque amount is doubtful.
23. The accused has also taken the defence that as per the case
of the complainant, he has lent a sum of ₹ 17,00,000/- over a.
period of time from 2017 to 2022 at various occasions. A
prudent man who lends some amount to another person will not
make further payments till his earlier payments are repaid by
the borrower. But in this case the complainant has stated that
he has paid a huge sum of ₹ 17,00,000/- in over a period of
time from 2017 to 2022 without receiving back a single rupee
from the accused. This also creates a reasonable doubt about
the truthfulness of the contention of the complainant.
24
C.C.No.37765/2022
24. As discussed above in the above referred decision in
Rangappa v. Mohan AIR 2010 SC 1898 , it is held that the
accused need not prove his defence with the cogent evidence. If
he is able to show that the existence of debt is doubtful is
sufficient to rebut the presumption. The defence is to be proved
with probable evidence. Then the burden shifts on the
complainant to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt.
Learner counsel for the accused has placed his reliance on the
decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2019) 5 SCC
418 between Basaringappa versus Muthibasappa. In this case
also it is held that Once the execution of the cheque is admitted,
Section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque
was for the discharge of any debt or other liability. And the onus
is on the accused to raise the probable defence. The standard of
proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of
probabilities. To rebut the presumption it is open to the accused
to rely on the evidence led by him or the accused can also rely
on the material submitted by the complainant in order to raise a
probable defence. Inference of preponderance of probabilities
can be drawn not only from the material brought on record by
the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon
which they rely. Thus, by relying the principles laid down in this
decision, lender counsel for the accused has submitted that the
25
C.C.No.37765/2022
conduct of the accused complainant in allegedly lending a sum
of ₹ 17,00,000/- over a period of 5 years without receiving a
single rupee from the accused creates a reasonable doubt and a
probable defence in favour of the accused. The circumstances
pleaded by the complainant itself creates a reasonable doubt
about lending of a sum of ₹ 17,00,000/- without receiving back
a single rupee from the accused. This is also a probable defence
taken by the accused.
25. The accused has also taken the defence that in the demand
notice the complainant has demanded a sum of ₹ 17,00,000/-
more than the cheque amount. Therefore in view of the
principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in 2025 SCC
Online SC 2019 between Kavari Plastics v. Mahdoom Bawa
Bahrudeen Noorul has submitted that the demand notice is
defective. But in this case on perusal of the demand notice the
complainant has clearly demanded to make the payment of the
cheque amount and not the outstanding due amount of ₹
17,00,000/-. Therefore this argument of the learned counsel for
the accused does not hold any water.
26. Learned counsel for the accused has also contended that
the complainant should have mentioned about the part
payments made by the accused in the demand notice and in the
26
C.C.No.37765/2022
complaint. The Complainant while presenting the cheque for
collection should have made an endorsement about the part
payments received by him as required under Section 56 of
Negotiable Instruments Act. In the absence of such
endorsement in the cheque by the complainant and not
disclosing the part payments made by the accused in the
demand notice, in the complaint and in the evidence is fatal to
the case of the complainant. To support his arguments, the
learned counsel for the accused has relied on the decision
reported in (2023) 1 SCC 578 between Dashrath Bhai
Trikambhai Patel v. Hitesh Mahendra Bhai Patel and another.
In this decision, it is held that :
when a part or whole of the sum represented on
the cheque is paid by the drawer of the cheque, it
must be endorsed on the cheque as prescribed
under Section 56 of the Act. The cheque endorsed
with the payment made may be used to negotiate
the balance, if any. If the cheque that is endorsed
is dishonored when it is sought to be encashed
upon maturity, then the offence under Section 138
will stand attracted.
Thus, by relying on this decision, the accused has contended
that suppression of the payments made by the complainants
creates a reasonable doubt in the case of the complainant and it
is sufficient for rebuttal of the presumption.
27
C.C.No.37765/2022
27. Thus, upon considering entire material on record, it is clear
that the complainant who claimed a sum of ₹ 14,00,000/-
under Exhibit P1 to Exhibit P4 cheque has suppressed about
the payments made by the accused to the complainant, which
admitted by the complainant in evidence for ₹6,84,000/- as
shown in Exhibit D1 to Exhibit D12 documents. Thus the
circumstances elicited in the cross-examination of PW1 and in
the defence evidence very clearly establishes that the
complainant has suppressed the payments made by the
accused. The material on record clearly shows that even if there
is any amount is due and payable by the accused, it is not
equivalent to the amount covered under the cheques. Thus
upon appreciating the entire evidence on record, it creates a
reasonable doubt about the truthfulness of the case pleaded by
the complainant. As discussed above, on 03.10.2022, the date
on which the accused allegedly issued the cheque at Bangalore
was working at Mandya and he is not available at Bangalore.
Thus the admission of PW1 that he has received 4 cheques for
the security gets importance and it shows that the complainant
has suppressed the facts. Thus, rebutal evidence given by the
accused probabilises that existence of debt claimed by the
complainant is doubtful. It is sufficient for rebuttal of the
presumption under Section 118 and 139 of Negotiable
28
C.C.No.37765/2022
Instruments Act. Thus the burden is shifted on the complainant
to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt without relying on
the presumption under law.
28. As discussed above the accused has admitted that the
complainant has paid a sum of ₹ 10,04,900/-. But he has
denied the receipt of ₹ 2,00,000/- on 08.08.2018, ₹ 1,85,000/-
on 18.06.2019 and ₹ 3,10,100/- paid by way of cash on various
occasions. Now the complainant is required to prove lending of
said amount to the accused with cogent evidence. But to
establish said fact the complainant has not produced any
material on record except his self-serving statements. Now he
cannot rely on the presumption under Section 118 and 139 of
Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore this Court concludes that
there is no material on record to prove that the accused has
received totally a sum of ₹ 17,00,000/- from the complainant as
alleged by him except the self-serving statement of the
complainant. There is no record is placed by the complainant to
prove that the accused has issued Exhibit P1 to P4 cheques in
discharge of his liability. Therefore, this Court concludes that in
the absence of presumption under law, the complainant has
failed to prove, lending of a sum of ₹ 17,00,000/- and issuance
of cheque for a sum of ₹ 14,00,000/- as claimed by the
complainant. Therefore this Court concludes that the
29
C.C.No.37765/2022
complainant has failed to prove the guilt of the accused with
cogent evidence. Therefore this Court holds that the the guilt of
the accused is not proved and he is entitled for acquittal. Hence
this Court answers the above point number 1 in the negative.
29. POINT NO. 2 : While answering the point no. 1 this court
concluded that the complainant has failed to prove commission
of offence by the accused under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act. Therefore the accused is entitled for acquittal
from this case. Therefore this court proceed to pass the
following –
ORDER
By exercising powers conferred U/sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C.,
the accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
The bail bond and surety bond of the accused shall
continue in force for a period of 6 months for the purposes of
Section 437 A of Cr.P.C.
The accused is set at liberty.
(Partly dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, typed by her,
partially dictated to Adalath ai application, transcribed by it, corrected and
signed then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2nd day of April
2026).
(GOKULA.K)
XXV A.C.J.M., BANGALORE CITY.
30
C.C.No.37765/2022
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
PW.1 : Kirshore Kumar K
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P1-4 : Cheques
Ex.P5-8 : Bank Endorsements
Ex.P9 : Office copy of Legal Notice.
Ex.P10-12 : Postal receipts
Ex.P13&14 : Postal Acknowledgments
Ex.P15 : Returned postal envelope
Ex.P16 : Reply notice
Ex.P17 : Bank Statement
Ex.P18-23 : ITR returns acknowledgment for the period
2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20,
2020- 21, 2021-22
Ex.P24 : Certificate U/s.65B
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE ACCUSED:
DW.1 : Ramachandra R
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE ACCUSED:
Ex.D1&2 : Statement of Accounts of Canara Bank
Ex.D3-D5 : Statement of Accounts of Indian Overseas
Bank
Ex.D6-9 : Challans
Ex.D10-12 : Statement of Accounts of Canara Bank
Ex.D13 : Certified copy of Attendance register
Ex.D14&15 : Certified copies of the Lease Sanction copies
Ex.D16 : Certified copy of the Transfer Proceedings.
(GOKULA.K.)
31
C.C.No.37765/2022XXV A.C.J.M., BANGALORE CITY.
