Bangalore District Court
M/S S.K.Enterprises Proprietor … vs Vasanthkumar.B on 21 July, 2025
KABC030845712022
IN THE COURT OF THE XIX ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU CITY.
Dated this the 21st day of July 2025.
PRESENT:SMT.RASHMI H.B.,B.A.(LAW)LL.B.,LLM.,
XIX ADDL.C.J.M., BENGALURU CITY.
C.C.No.35569 of 2022
Complainant :- M/s.S.K.Enterprises,
Proprietor - Y.G.Shivakumar,
S/o.Late Sri.Gurusiddappa,
Aged about 39 Years,
O/at. No.2, 3rd Cross,
SRS Road, Peenya,
Bengaluru-560058.
(Rep. By Sri.S.V., Advocate)
-V/s-
Accused :- Vasanthkumar B.,
S/o.Late Sri.Basappa P.K.,
Aged about 50 Years,
R/at.15, 1st Floor, A.M.S.
Layout, Vidyaranyapura,
Bengaluru - 560097.
Also Office at:
Vasanthkumar B.,
Proprietor of GKS Enterprises,
No.28, MEC Layout, Ganapathi
Nagar, Rajgopal Nagar Main
Road, Laggere,
Bengaluru - 560058.
(In person)
2 C.C.No.35569/2022
Date of complaint :- 29-09-2022
Date of Commencement :- 14-11-2022
of evidence
Offence complained :- Section 138 of N.I.Act
Opinion of the Judge Accused is found guilty.
(SMT.RASHMI H.B.,)
XIX ADDL.C.J.M., Bengaluru City.
JUDGMENT
This is a private complaint filed under section 200 of
Cr.P.C., against the accused for the offence punishable
under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
02.The brief facts of the complaint is as under:
The complainant and accused are friends since 12
years. The accused was running business in the name and
style of G.K.S. Enterprises. The complainant is also running
money lending business in the name and style of S.K.
Enterprises. In that acquaintance, the accused has availed
hand loan sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 02-01-2017, sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- on 01-08-2018 and sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on
28-11-2018 in total sum of Rs.3,50,000/- from the
3 C.C.No.35569/2022complainant by way of cash to meet his business
necessities, domestic needs and clearing debts. On the
same day of obtaining last loan amount, the accused
issued a post dated cheque bearing No 000013 dated 03-
08-2022 for Rs 3,50,000/-, drawn on Andhra Bank,
Lakshmipura Branch, Bengaluru, in favour of the
complainant. The complainant presented said cheque for
encashment through his banker Kotak Mahindra Bank,
Sadashivanagar Branch, Bengaluru. But the said cheque
is returned unpaid with bank endorsement dated 05-08-
2022 for the reason “Account Blocked”. Thereafter, the
complainant has got issued legal notice to the accused
through his counsel on 02-09-2022 through registered post
and the same was duly served to accused. But accused
has failed to make payment of cheque amount. Hence, the
complainant has filed this complaint on 29-09-2022.
03. After presentation of complaint, this Court
took cognizance of offence and recorded the sworn
statement of complainant. Thereafter, a criminal case is
registered against accused and summons is issued to
4 C.C.No.35569/2022
the accused. The accused appeared through his counsel
and he is enlarged on bail. The copies of the complaint
and other papers furnished to the accused. Substance of
accusation was read over to him. Accused pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried.
04. In order to prove the accusation made against
the accused, the complainant examined himself as PW1
and got marked 08 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. But
accused has failed to cross examine PW1. The accused
remained absent when matter is posted for Statement
under section 313 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the Judgement
of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Criminal
Revision Petition No.664/2020, dated 07-02-2025 in
case of Sunil Yadav Vs. Smt.Y.C.Manju, this court has
dispensed the statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C.
05. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for
complainant. The defence did not adduce arguments.
The counsel for accused filed retirement memo on
behalf of accused. Perused entire case record carefully.
5 C.C.No.35569/2022
06. On the basis of contentions raised in the
complaint the points that arises for determination of this
Court are as follows:
1.Whether the complainant proves that,
the accused issued the cheque towards
discharge of legally enforceable debt?
2.Whether the complainant proves the guilt
of the accused for the offence
punishable under section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act?
3.What order?
07. Now, this Court answers to above points are
as follows:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative;
Point No.2: In the Affirmative;
Point No.3: As per final order for
the following:
:: R E A S O N S ::
08. POINTS No.1 and 2: Since these points are
inter-relating with each other, they are taken up together
for common discussion to avoid the repetition of facts and
findings.
6 C.C.No.35569/2022
09. This case is tried as summons case. As this
matter is tried as summons case, this Court relies on the
evidence recorded by learned predecessor in office. In that
regard, this Court relies on decision of Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Mehsana Nagarik Sahkari
Bank Ltd., V/s Shreeji Cab Co. & Others reported in
2014(13) SCC 619. Wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court
had observed that de-nova hearing is necessary only when
the evidence is recording in summary manner. Therefore,
this Court has proceeded with the case on the basis of part
evidence recorded previously.
10. Before proceeding with the discussion, in order to
prove the guilt of offence under section 138 of N.I. Act,
initial burden casts on the complainant to prove the
following ingredients:
a) The cheque must have been drawn
for discharge of existing debt or
liability.
b) Cheque must be presented within
validity period.
c) Cheque must be returned unpaid due
to insufficient funds or it exceeds the
amount arranged.
7 C.C.No.35569/2022
d) Fact of dishonour be informed to the
drawer by notice within 30 days.
e) Drawer of cheque must fail to make
payment within 15 days of receipt of
the notice.
11. In order to prove the case, the complainant
Sri.Y.G.Shivakumar has examined himself as PW1. The PW1
has filed an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief
reiterating entire complaint averments. In support of his
oral evidence, he produced Ex.P1 to 8 documents. The
complainant got marked original cheque as Ex.P1, bank
endorsement as Ex.P2, demand notice as Ex.P3, two postal
receipts as Ex.P4 and 5, postal acknowledgment as Ex.P6,
unclaimed RPAD postal cover as Ex.P7, notice in Ex.P7 as
Ex.P7(a) and notarized copy of licence as Ex.P8.
12. Though several opportunities are granted to
accused, he failed to cross-examine PW1. Therefore, cross-
examination of PW1 taken as nil. Therefore, evidence of
PW1 is unchallenged and unrebutted.
8 C.C.No.35569/2022
13. The evidence of PW1 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P8 clearly
show the complaint is filed within time and all the
ingredients of section 138 of N.I.Act. The cheque is issued
for legally recoverable debt and it is dishonored for
“Account blocked”. Still the said endorsement of bank raises
cause of action for the offence punishable under Section
138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The said point is settled
by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its reported judgment
in 2010 (11) SCC 441 and the case of Laxmi Dyechem Vs
State of Gujarath reported in 2012(13) SCC 375.The
said fact is brought to the notice of accused. Till date the
accused did not comply the demand of the complainant for
payment of amount mentioned in the cheques. Therefore,
PW1 has discharged her burden to prove the ingredients of
the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act.
14. Another aspect is to consider whether the Ex.P1
cheque and Ex.P1(a) signature belongs to the accused or
not. The accused did not dispute the said facts by leading
evidence. These facts clearly shows that the cheques in
9 C.C.No.35569/2022
dispute is belongs to accused and he has signed the said
document. Therefore, presumption under section 118 and
139 of N.I. Act lies in favour of the complainant.
15. As per provision of section 118 and 139 of N.I.
Act, the court has to presume liability of the accused and to
such amount mentioned in the cheque to discharge legally
recoverable debt. The said aspect was denied by the
accused. Once the execution of cheque is admitted section
139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque
was for the discharge of any debt or other liability.
Thereafter, the onus of proving probable defense of the
accused is on accused and standard of proof for rebutting
presumption is preponderance of probabilities. To rebut
presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on evidence
or the accused can also rely on the materials submitted by
the complainant in order to raise probable defense.
16. In that regard, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in its Judgment reported in 2019(5) SCC 418 in the
case of Basalingappa V/s Mudibasappa discussed the
manner in which accused could rebut the presumption
10 C.C.No.35569/2022
raised under section 118 and 139 of Negotiable instruments
Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa reported in 2019 (5)
SCC 418 laid down principles regarding how presumption
under section 118 and 139 of N.I.Act can be rebutted. As
per the said judgement it is not necessary to accused to
enter into witness box to rebut the presumptions.
17. To rebut the presumptions, accused did not
entered into witness box to establish the fact that how his
cheques are gone into the hands of complainant other than
the reasons explained by complainant. No such defence is
made by cross-examining the PW1. Therefore, mere denial
of accusation during recording plea, does not rebut the
presumption U/s.139 of N.I.Act.
18. The Full bench Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Rangappa vs Sri Mohan
reported in 2010(11) SCC 441 held that presumption
mandated by section 139 of N.I.Act does indeed include the
existence of legally enforceable debt or liability. Therefore,
once the initial burden is discharged by the complainant
11 C.C.No.35569/2022
that the cheque is issued by accused and the signature, the
burden casted on the accused to prove the contrary that
cheque is not issued for any debt or other liability. The said
proposition of law is laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of the P Rasiya vs Abdul Nazer and
another. In the Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India reported in 2021 (5) SCC 283 in the case of M/S
Kalamani Tex vs P. Balasubramanian. In the para 13 of
said Judgement the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as
follows:
“13. Adverting to the case in hand, we find on a
plain reading of its judgement that the trail court
completely overlooked the provisions and failed to
appreciate the statutory presumption drawn under
section 118 and section 139 of N.I.A. The statute
mandates that once the signature(s) of an accused
on the cheque/negotiable instrument are
established, then these “reverse onus” clause
become operative. In such a situation, the
obligation shifts upon the accused to discharge the
presumption imposed upon him. The point of law
has been crystalised by the court in Rohitbhai
Jivanlal Patel vs State of Gujarath…”
12 C.C.No.35569/2022
19. Considering aforesaid legal proposition, burden
casted on accused to disprove the case of complainant and
his defence must be found more probable. As per section
139 of the N.I.Act, it shall be presumed unless contrary is
proved, that the holder of cheques has received the
cheques of the nature referred to in section 138 of N.I. Act
for discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other
liability. The presumption mandated by section 139 of N.I.
Act, does indeed include the existence of legally enforceable
debt or liability. Therefore, once the initial burden is
discharged by the complainant that the cheques are issued
by accused and the signatures, the burden casted on the
accused to prove the contrary that cheques are not issued
for any debt or other liability. However, in this case accused
has failed to make probable defence to rebut the
presumptions. Hence, on the basis of the evidence of PW1
and Ex.P1 to 8 documents, the complainant has proved the
case and complainant is entitled for recovery of the amount
as compensation.
13 C.C.No.35569/2022
20. On considering the facts and circumstances of
the case, the complainant has able to establish that Ex.P.1
cheque is issued to discharge liability of repayment of
Rs.3,50,000/- to complainant by the accused. Ex.P1 is
dishonoured for the reason ‘Account Blocked’ in the account
of accused and complainant is entitled for the cheque
amount as compensation. Further, complainant is entitled
for compensation of Rs.10,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
The accused is not a repeated offender. Hence, there is no
need to award imprisonment term. However, accused is
liable to pay the fine amount of Rs.10,000/- to the state
towards litigation expenses. Under these circumstances,
this Court answers Points No.1 and 2 in the Affirmative.
21. POINT No.3: For the foregoing reasons stated
in the Points No.1 and 2, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
The accused is found guilty for the offence
punishable under section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act.
14 C.C.No.35569/2022
Acting under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C.,
the accused is convicted for the offence
punishable under section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused is
sentenced to pay a fine of Rs 3,70,000/- and
in case of default he shall undergo simple
imprisonment for 6 months.
Out of the fine amount Rs 3,60,000/-
shall be paid to the complainant as
compensation as per section 357(1)(b) of
Cr.P.C. The remaining amount of Rs.10,000/-
shall be defray to the State.
In view of section 437(A) of Cr.P.C. bail
bonds stand extended for 6 months from this
date.
Supply free copy of Judgment to the
accused.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, revised and corrected by me
st
21 day of July, 2025)
and signed, pronounced in the Open Court on this the(SMT.RASHMI H.B.,)
XIX ADDL.C.J.M., Bengaluru City.
15 C.C.No.35569/2022
::ANNEXURE::
List of Witnesses examined for Complainant:-
PW1 :- Y.G.Shivakumar.
List of Documents marked for Complainant:-
Ex.P1 :- Original Cheque, Ex.P1(a) :- Signature of Accused, Ex.P2 :- Bank Endorsement, Ex.P3 :- Office copy of the Legal Notice, Ex.P4 & 5 :- Two Postal Receipts, Ex.P6 :- Postal Acknowledgment, Ex.P7 :- Unserved RPAD Postal Cover, Ex.P7(a) :- Notice in Ex.P7, Ex.P8 :- Notarized copy of Licence.
List of Witnesses examined for Accused:-
– NIL –
List of Documents marked for Accused:-
– NIL –
(SMT.RASHMI H.B.,)
XIX ADDL.C.J.M., Bengaluru City.
16 C.C.No.35569/2022
