Bangalore District Court
Nataraj Kumar S vs M/S Jrbh Manpower Consultancy And … on 7 April, 2026
KABC030613832022
IN THE COURT OF XX ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU CITY
PRESENT: BHOLA PANDIT,
B.Com.,LL.M.,
XX ADDL. C.J.M.
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 7th day of April 2026
C.C.No. 24354/ 2022
Complainant : Nataraj Kumar S
S/o. Seetharam
Aged about 46 years,
R/at No.707, 18th Main Road,
8th B Cross, MEI Layout
Bagalagunte,
Nagasandra Post
Bengaluru - 560 073
{ By Sri.Jagannatha Rao- Advocate }
Vs.
2 C.C. No. 24354 / 2022
Accused : M/s. JRBH Manpower Consultancy and
Allied Services,
No.238/377, Ground Floor
NH-4 , Arisinakunte,
Nelamangala
Bengaluru Rural District,
Represented by its Proprietor,
Gangadhar R.
S/o. Rajanna H
Aged 43 years,
Also at
Gangadhar R
S/o. Rajanna H
Aged 43 years,
Proprietor
M/s. JRBH Manpower Consultancy and
Allied Services,
R/at Sri. Nanjundeshwara Swamy Nivasa,
No.40, Sundara Nagara Circle,
Arisinakunte,
Bengaluru Rural - 562 123
Phone No./ 7406588889
{ By Sri.Suraj Patil- Advocate }
3 C.C. No. 24354 / 2022
Offence complained : U/S. 138 of N.I. Act.
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
Final Order : Accused is acquitted
Date of Order : 07.04.2026.
4 C.C. No. 24354 / 2022
JUDGMENT
The present complaint is filed under section 200 of
code of criminal procedure against the accused seeking to
punish him for the offense punishable under section 138
of the Negotiable Instruments Act ( in short referred as “N.I.
Act“).
02. The brief facts of the complaint germane are as under.
It is stated that, on 31.01.2019 the complainant and
accused had entered into an agreement of sale for two sites
i.e. site No.8 and 9 situated in Sy.No.1/5, 1/6, 1/7 and
1/7 of Agalaguppe Village, Thamagondlu Hobli,
Nelamangala Taluk of Bangalore Rural District and the wife
of complainant has paid an advance amount of Rs.4 lakhs
in the following terms.
1) Rs. 1,00,000/- by way of cash
2) Rs.1,50,000/- by way of cheque
bearing No.686576 drawn on Andhra
Bank
5 C.C. No. 24354 / 2022
3) Rs.1,50,000/- by way of cheque
bearing No.686577 drawn on Andhra
BankIt is further contended that, the accused was asking
complainant to pay the balance amount part by part. The
complainant has paid Rs.50,000/- on 17.12.2019 by way
of cheque No.87. Paid Rs.1 lakhs on 27.12.2019 by way of
cheque No.91. Rs.50,000/- paid on 03.01.2020 by way of
cheque No.92. Rs.50,000/- paid on 22.01.2020 by way fo
cheque No.96 and finally Rs.3,50,000/- paid on
20.11.2020 by way of cheque No.688209. All these
amount has been paid only in respect of agreement of sale
dated 31.01.2019. After the complainant’s repeated
demand for the registration of sites and instead of
executing sale deed, the accused had issued two cheques
bearing No.806805 for Rs.2,50,000/- and another
cheque bearing No.806810 for Rs.3,50,000/- both drawn
on drawn on Adhara Bank, Dasarahalli Branch, Bengluru
dated 11.04.2022. When the said cheques were presented
6 C.C. No. 24354 / 2022with his banker on the same day, they have returned
unpaid with a shara as ‘funds insufficient ‘ vide memo
dated 11.04.2022. On 07.05.2022 he got issued demand
notice to the accused by RPAD and the said notice was
duly served on the accused. In spite of the service of
demand notice the accused has neither has paid the
cheque amount nor has given any reply. Therefore, it is
prayed to punish the accused under section 138 of NI Act
and grant her compensation.
03. On presentation of the complaint, this court has
verified the averments of the complaint and also annexed
documents. Having made out prima facie case cognizance
has been taken for the offense punishable u/s 138 of NI
Act. As per the verdict of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Indian Bank Association V/s. Union of India and others
sworn statement of the Complainant has been recorded as
PW1 and in all got marked 11 documents at Ex.P1 to P11.
Having made out prima facie case it is ordered to register
7 C.C. No. 24354 / 2022
the complaint in register No.III and to issue process against
the accused.
04. In response to the court summons, the accused put
his appearance before the court through his counsel and
filed bail application under section 436 of Cr.P.C., along
with necessary applications, since the alleged offense is
bailable in nature, accused has been enlarged on bail. The
plea has been recorded and read over to the accused he
pleaded not guilty and wanted to put forth his defense. As
per section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, sworn
statement of the Complainant has been treated as affidavit
evidence and the accused has been permitted to cross-
examine of PW1. After terminating the Complainant side
evidence, the statement of accused under section 313 of
Cr.P.C., read over and explained to accused the
incriminating evidence, the accused denied the same in
toto and also wanted to adduce evidence on his behalf.
But no defense evidence is adduced and submitted that no
defense evidence for the accused side.
8 C.C. No. 24354 / 2022
05. Heard the oral arguments advanced by both the
learned counsels.
In support of his oral argument the learned defense
counsel has relied the following citations.
1 Criminal Appeal No.1166/ 2008 in between
Sri. Venkatesh Bhat Vs. Sri. Rohidas Shenoy of
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka
2 Criminal Appeal No.1237/ 2018 in between
Sri. Prakash Shetty Vs. Sri. Venkatesh of Hon’ble
High Court of Karnataka
3 2024 (1) Kar. L.J. 35 in between
S S Ramesh Vs K Lokesh
4 ILR 2021 KAR 2437 in between
Bidar Urban Co-op Bank Ltd. Vs. Mr. Girish
5 ILR 2009 KAR 2331 in between
B. Indramma Vs Sri.Ishwar
6 Criminal Appeal No.332 / 2012 in between
Sri. F. Chandra Vs. Smt. Anitha of the Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka
7 2019 (5) SCC 418 in between
Basalingappa Vs Mudibasappa
8 2006(6) SCC 39 in between
M S Narayana Menon Vs. State of Kerala and
another
9 Criminal Appeal No. 100029 / 2018 in between
Sri. Kamalakumar Jain Vs. Benaka Sponge Iron Pvt.
Ltd. And another, of Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka
9 C.C. No. 24354 / 2022
06. The following points that arise for my consideration
are as under;
POINTS
1. Does the complainant proves
beyond reasonable doubts that, the
accused has issued 2 cheques
bearing No.806805 for
Rs.2,50,000/- and another cheque
bearing No.806810 for
Rs.3,50,000/- both drawn on drawn
on Adhara Bank, Dasarahalli
Branch, Bengluru dated 11.04.2022.
towards the discharge of his lawful
debt of the complainant and when
the Complainant presented the said
cheque for encashment, they were
returned unpaid due to shara as
“Funds insufficient” as per
banker’s memo and in-spite of
issuance of demand notice, the
accused has failed to pay the
cheque amount, thereby has
committed the offence punishable
under section 138 of NI Act?
10 C.C. No. 24354 / 2022
2. What Order or sentence ?
07. My findings to the above points is as follows;
1. Point No.1: In the Negative
2. Point No.2: As per final order
for the following;
REASONS
POINT No.1:
08. It is the specific case of the complainant that, the
accused has entered with his wife a sale agreement for the
sale of 2 sites as stated in the complaint and his wife has
paid an advance amount of Rs. 4 lakhs by way of cash and
cheques and also he has paid Rs.6 lakhs by way of
cheques. The accused has under taken to execute the sale
deed within the stipulated time or else he would repay the
advance amount. In spite of repeated request of the
complainant, the accused has failed to execute the sale
deed in favour of his wife. Instead, the accused has issued
2 disputed cheques. When the Complainant has
11 C.C. No. 24354 / 2022presented the said cheques with his banker, they have
returned unpaid due to “Funds insufficient” and thereafter
despite service of demand notice, the accused has failed
to pay the cheque amount instead gave evasive reply.
Wherefore, it is sought to prosecute the accused under
section 138 of NI Act and to grant him compensation.
09. To substantiate and to prove his case beyond all
reasonable doubts, the sworn statement of complainant
has been treated as affidavit evidence. PW1 has replicated
the averments of the complaint and got marked in all 11
documents. Ex.P1 and 2 are the disputed cheques,
Ex.P3 & P4 are the bank return memos, Ex.P5 is the
demand notice, Ex.P6 & P7 are the postal receipts, Ex.P8
& P9 are the postal acknowledgments, Ex.P10 is the
notarized copy of agreement of sale, Ex.P.11 is the Bank
account statement. To disprove the case of the
Complainant and also to rebut the Legal presumptions
which could be drawn in favour of complainant, the
accused has not adduced his oral evidence, so also not
12 C.C. No. 24354 / 2022
produced any documentary evidences on his behalf. The
learned defense counsel has submitted no oral evidence on
behalf of accused. The learned defense counsel has cross
examined PW1 comprehensively.
10. Before to venture in the appreciation and reliability
of oral and documentary evidence produced on records, it
is imperative on this court to find out whether the
Complainant has complied the necessary ingredients of
section 138 of NI Act before filing the present complaint.
11. Looking upon the disputed cheque, bank return
memo, demand notice at Ex.P.1 to 5 it can be seen that,
the disputed cheques have been presented with bank
within its validity period and demand notice has been
issued within 30 days from the date of receiving the bank
return memo. Looking to the postal acknowledgments at
Ex.P8 & P9 the accused has personally received the
demand notice by putting his signature. During the entire
cross-examination of PW1 the service of demand notice as
13 C.C. No. 24354 / 2022
per Ex.P8 & P9 is not at all denied. The present complaint
is filed before this court on 17.06.2022. Thus, it can be
concluded that, the present complaint has been filed before
this court only after the compliance of the requirements of
section 138 of NI Act.
12. Section 118 & 139 of NI Act are two important
provisions and they provides for raising mandatory
presumptions in favour of the complainant until the
contrary is proved by the accused. Even in the catena of
decisions i.e., in the case of Rangappa Vs. Mohan reported
in 2010(11) SCC 441, in the case of Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh
Kumar reported in 2019(4) SCC 197, in the case of APS
Forex Services (P) Ltd., Vs.Shakthi International Fashion
Linkers reported in 2020(12) SCC 724, in the case of
Rajeshbai Muljibhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in
2020(3) SCC 794, in the case of Triyambak S. Hegde Vs.
Sripad reported in Live Law 2021 SC 492. The learned
defense counsel has also relied the well known judgment of
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Basalingappa Vs.
14 C.C. No. 24354 / 2022
Mudibasappa reported in 2019(5) SCC 418 a precedent is
laid down that, ” Once the issuance of cheque and the
signature thereon is admitted by the accused, the court is
required to raise presumption in favour of the
complainant stating that, the accused has issued the
cheque for some consideration towards discharge of his
legal debt or liability of the complainant and that the
complainant is the due holder of the said cheque. The
burden or reverse onus shifts on the accused to rebut the
statutory presumptions under sections 118(a) & 139 of NI
Act.” Now, it is well established law that, the presumption
mandated by section 139 of NI Act, thus indeed includes
the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability and it is
open for the accused to raise a probable defense wherein
the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability can be
contested and he shall prove before the court on
preponderance of probabilities, only thereupon a statutory
presumption raised in favour of the complainant stands
rebutted.
15 C.C. No. 24354 / 2022
13. In the instance case on hand, in spite of receiving the
demand notice the accused has failed to give reply notice
and thereby did not put forth his defense in the beginning
itself. However, there is no bar for the accused to take his
defense during the trial. During cross-examination of PW1
many factual aspects have been elicited. It has been
suggested to PW1 stating that himself has been working in
the bank since 10 years as a consultant to provide loan to
the customers and the agreement at Ex.P10 has been
entered between himself and the accused, he has no role in
the said agreement. He do not know other works then that
of consultancy. He further admitted that, the police of R T
Nagar PS as well as V V Puram PS have summoned him
and enquired with regard to his providing loan to the
customers. He further admitted that, upon the
commission of fraud in Andhra Bank the police have
summoned to him and the bank officials and made
enquiry. In support of his evidence PW1 has produced his
bank account statement at Ex.P11 which discloses in all 4
relevant entries and as per those entries a sum of Rs.6
16 C.C. No. 24354 / 2022
lakhs has been transferred to the accused. In order to
believe the version of the complainant that only towards
consideration of Ex.P10 a sum of Rs.6 lakhs has been
transferred to the accused account, absolutely no such
endorsement has been made on the alleged agreement at
Ex.P10 nor a receipt has been taken from the accused
stating that, the said amount was received only in respect
of Ex.P10. The amount alleged to have been paid under
Ex.P11 might be for some other purposes and that cannot
be ruled out, as such earlier payment of advance amount
an endorsement has been made on Ex.P10. During
further cross-examination a suggestion has been made by
way of putting defense stating that, on the pretext to
provide loan to the accused, the signed blank cheques and
signed blank stamp papers have been taken from the
accused and filed two false cases. By this suggestion, the
accused has put forth his defense and in order to prove
this defense on preponderance of probabilities, though the
accused did not entered in the witness box, but his counsel
has comprehensively cross-examined PW1.
17 C.C. No. 24354 / 2022
14. It is very pertinent to note that, when the alleged
agreement of sale of 2 sites has been entered between wife
of complainant and accused, the wife of complainant is the
material witness but she is not examined before the court.
He stated that, he has paid Rs.6 lakhs as an advance
amount. Out of Rs.18 lakhs he has paid total Rs.6 lakhs
by way of cheques. Whereas, looking to the alleged
agreement of sale produced at Ex.P10 no endorsement has
been found about payment of Rs.6 lakhs by the
complainant so also no receipt has been taken from the
accused. Apart from that, either in the demand notice or
in the complaint CC No. 24351 /2022 this fact has been
pleaded. Although evidence of PW1 coupled with the
document at Ex.P11 it appears that, the complainant has
paid Rs. 6 lakhs to the accused but it is clear that the
same amount was paid towards the sale agreement at
Ex.P10. When it is the defense of the accused that, his
signatures on the blank cheque and blank document
sheets have been obtained, which does not mean that, the
18 C.C. No. 24354 / 2022
accused is admitting the due execution of document at
Ex.P10. Further, to appreciate the document about the
alleged execution agreement of sale is the domain of the
civil court and this court being criminal court has no
jurisdiction to appreciate the alleged agreement of sale.
Further more, to attract the offense u/s 138 of NI Act in
respect of the alleged issuance of disputed cheque there
must be the rescind the contract between both the parties
in respect of the alleged Ex.P10. Neither in the complaint
nor in the evidence of PW1 it is not specifically stated when
the alleged agreement at Ex.P10 has been cancelled. Even
no notice was issued by the complainant to rescind the
alleged agreement of sale. Even no agreement has been
made between both of them canceling the alleged
agreement at Ex.P10. Ex.P10 is an unregistered document,
so it cannot be presumed that, under the said document
Rs.6 lakhs have been paid by the complainant, unless its
one of the attesting witness would have been examined. By
considering all these material facts elicited, it appears that,
though the documentary evidence produced by
19 C.C. No. 24354 / 2022
complainant corroborate to his own evidence but since it is
not established that the said amount was paid only
towards Ex.P10. On further scrutiny of the bank account
statement produced at Ex.P10 it reveals about payment of
4 entries for total payment of Rs.6 lakhs. But not clear
whether the said amount was paid only towards Ex.P10.
Even otherwise , since the alleged agreement at Ex.P10 is
not got canceled either by issuing any notice or entering
into any cancellation agreement, the dishonour of alleged
cheque at Ex.P1 and P2 do not attract the offense u/s 138
olf NI Act. Thus, the defense put forth by the accused
appears to be probable and believable. The legal
presumptions stands rebutted and the complainant has
failed to prove her case beyond reasonable doubt. The
learned defense counsel has relied the judgment of our own
Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka in Criminal Appeal No.1166/2008 in between
Venkatesh Bhat Vs. Rohidas Shenoy, wherein the it is held
that, when the agreement of sale are violated by the
accused, then the remedy is left else where but not before a
20 C.C. No. 24354 / 2022
criminal court. Relied another judgment in Criminal
Appeal No.1237/2018 in between Prakash Shetty Vs.
Venkatesh wherein also it is held that, the agreement of
sale is a matter of civil in nature but the complainant
instead of filing a civil suit tried to give a criminal colour to
the transaction which is not permissible under the law as
he had a civil remedy. In another relied judgment of the
Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2006 (6) SCC 39 in between
M S Narayana Menon Vs. State of Keral and another
wherein it is held that, the initial burden is on the accused
to discharge and rebut the legal presumptions, then only
onus shifts on the complainant to prove his case beyond
reasonable doubts. Another judgment of Hon’ble High court
of Karnataka in Criminal Appeal No.100029 /2018
wherein it is held that, the due amount is lesser than the
cheque amount and there is no endorsement made on the
cheque as required u/s 56 of NI Act, it do not attract the
offense u/s 138 of NI Act. The above relied judgments are
squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the
case on hand. The learned defense counsel has relied the
21 C.C. No. 24354 / 2022
well known judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in
2019 (5) SCC 418 in the case of Basalingappa Vs/
Mudibasappa. Ofcourse in this judgment the Hon’ble Apex
Court has upheld the judgment of trial court regarding the
acquittal of the accused by setting aside the conviction
judgment of Hon’ble High Court . But in the said judgment
it is held that, when the complainant has failed to prove his
financial capacity and accordingly the acquittal order of the
trial court is upheld. This ratio is also not applicable to the
case on hand. However, the other ratio with regard to
quality of evidence to rebut the legal presumptions and the
quality of evidence by the complainant to prove his case
beyond reasonable doubts is commonly applies to each and
every criminal case u/s 138 of NI Act. The learned defense
counsel has also relied judgment of Hon’ble Alhabad High
Court in the case of Archana Singh Gautam Vs. State of U
P and another wherein it is held that, the invalid cheque
do not attract the liability u/s 138 of NI Act. But in the
present case the cheque at Ex.P1 has writtne unpaid due
to “Funds insufficient” .
22 C.C. No. 24354 / 2022
15. The learned defense counsel vehemently argued that,
it is a time barred claim and the offense u/s 138 of NI Act
do not attract. In support of his contention the learned
defense counsel has relied the judgment of Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka reported in ILR 2021 KAR 2437 in the
case of The Bidar Urban Co-op, Bank Ltd. Vs. Mr. Girish.
Another judgment reported in 2024(1) Kar.L. J. 35 in the
case of S S Ramesh Vs. K Lokesh. With due respect to the
relied judgments , I have carefully gone through the same.
In both the relied judgments the facts of the case were
relating to advancement of money, whereas in the present
case on hand it is the alleged claim for the repayment of
advance money paid for the alleged agreement of sale,
therefore as per Article 54 and Article 113 of Limitation
Act if the seller refuses to executed the sale deed or from
the date of breeze of contract within 3 years the alleged
advance money shall be recoverable and article 18 and 19
of Limitation Act are not applicable to the present case on
hand. Therefore, I do not find any force in the argument of
23 C.C. No. 24354 / 2022
the learned defense counsel. Therefore the said ratio is not
applicable to the case on hand. Thus, from the material
evidence available on record the legal presumptions stands
rebutted and the complainant has failed to prove his case
beyond reasonable doubts. Hence, I answer point No.1 in
the Negative .
POINT NO.2:
16. In view of the above findings, this court proceed to
pass the following;
ORDER
Acting under Section 255(1) of code
of criminal procedure, the accused is
acquitted for the offence punishable under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
The bail bond of accused and surety
stands canceled subject to appeal period.
{Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and computerized by her, revised corrected
and then pronounced in the open court on this 7th day of April 2026}.
24 C.C. No. 24354 / 2022
(BHOLA PANDIT)
XX ACJM,
ANNEXURE
List of witnesses examined on behalf of complainant:
P.W.1 Nataraj Kumar S
List of documents produced on behalf of complainant:
Ex.P.1 & 2 Cheques Ex.P.1(a) & 2(a) Signature of the accused Ex.P.3 and 4 Bank endorsement Ex.P.5 Copy of the legal notice Ex.P.6 & 7 Postal Receipts Ex.P.8 & 9 Postal acknowledgments Ex.P.10 Sale Agreement Ex.P.11 Bank Statement
List of witnesses examined on behalf of accused:
Nil
List of documents produced on behalf of accused:
Nil
XX A.C.J.M. Bengaluru.
