Bangalore District Court
Nayandahalli Credit Co-Operative … vs M. Nirmala on 19 February, 2026
1
CC No.1403/2023
KABC030022922023
IN THE COURT OF THE XXVI ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, AT: BENGALURU
Present : Smt. NIRMALA .S.,
B.A.L., LL.M.,
XXVI Addl., Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bengaluru.
DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026
JUDGMENT U/S 355 OF Cr.P.C.1973
1. Serial number : C.C. No.1403/2023
2. Name of the : Nayandahalli Credit Co-operative
complainant Society Limited,
Having its registered office at
No.177, Ground floor,
Pantarapalya, Railway Gate
Road, Mysore Road,
Nayandahalli,
Bengaluru-560 026.
Rep. by its C.E.O.
(By Sri. M.B.S. Advocate)
3. Name of the accused : Smt. M. Nirmala
W/o Late M. Thimmarayappa
2
CC No.1403/2023
Aged about 60 years
R/at No.176, 1st Floor,
Pantarapalya, Railway Gate
Road, Mysore Road,
Nayandahalli,
Bengaluru-560 026.
(By Sri. A.C.M. Advocate)
4. The offence : Section 138 of the N.I. Act
complained of or
proved
5. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
6. Final order : Accused is convicted
7. Date of order : 19-02-2026
******
JUDGMENT
This complaint is filed by the complainant i.e.,
Nayandahalli Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd., against the
accused for the offence punishable U/s.138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act.
3
CC No.1403/2023
2. The brief facts of complainant case is that, the accused
was the President of the Nayandahalli Credit Co-Operative
Society Limited until 08-05-2022. On 08-05-2022 the
accused had presided the Board meeting of the complainant
society and the accused had admitted the liability of four
loans obtained by 1) B.S. Suresh vide membership No.787
outstanding amount of Rs.4,41,520/-, 2) Basavaraju V. vide
membership No.97 outstanding amount of Rs.4,37,520/- 3)
Sathish Kumar M. vide membership No.857, outstanding
amount of Rs.1,76,260/- and 4) Smt. Kamalamma vide
membership No.121, outstanding amount of Rs.3,49,940/-
totally an amount of Rs.14,05,240/-and assured in the
Board meeting to repay the entire outstanding amount to
the society admitting that accused herself had obtained the
said loans in their names and utilized the same. Admitting
the liability, the accused had issued three cheques bearing
No.781627 dated 27-10-2022 for a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-,
4
CC No.1403/2023
cheque bearing No.781628 dated 31-10-2022 for a sum of
Rs.3,00,000/- and cheque bearing No.781629 dated 04-11-
2022 for a sum of Rs.3,05,240/- totally to an amount of
Rs.14,05,240/- drawn on State Bank of India, Chandra
Layout Branch. Further it is stated that when the
complainant has presented the aforesaid cheques for
encashment through its State Bank of India, it was
dishonoured as ‘Funds Insufficient’ on 04-11-2022. Further
even though the complainant brought the same fact to the
knowledge of the accused through the legal notice dated 09-
11-2022 by RPAD and it has been served on the accused on
10-11-2022 and the accused has sent a reply dated 23-11-
2022 denying to pay the cheqe amount. Therefore the
complainant aggrieved by the acts of the accused filed this
complaint for dishonour of the cheque issued by the accused
towards the discharge of legally recoverable debt. As such
is the case failure on the part of the accused to repay the
5
CC No.1403/2023
cheques amount the complainant has approached the court
for the reliefs claimed in the complaint.
3. After filing this complaint, this court took cognizance
of the offence and registered the criminal case against the
accused and summons was issued to her. In response to
summons, she appeared before the court through her
counsel and she was enlarged on bail. Thereafter plea
was recorded and accused pleaded not guilty.
4. The complainant has represented by its Chief
Executive, the complainant by name Smt. R. Nagaveni
and she has been examined as PW-1 and she has produced
29 documents as per Ex-P1 to 29. On the other hand the
accused is examined as DW-1 and got marked 6 documents
as per Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-6.
6
CC No.1403/2023
5. On perusal of entire case file and evidence available
on record the following points would arise for my
consideration are:
1) Whether the complainant proves
that, the accused in due discharge of
legally recoverable debt or other liability
had issued the alleged three cheques
bearing No.781627 dated 27-10-2022 for
a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-, cheque bearing
No.781628 dated 31-10-2022 for a sum of
Rs.3,00,000/- and cheque bearing
No.781629 dated 04-11-2022 for a sum of
Rs.3,05,240/- totally to an amount of
Rs.14,05,240/- drawn on State Bank of
India, Chandra Layout Branch,
Bengaluru?
2) Whether the complainant proves that,
on presentation of said cheques, same
were returned unpaid as “Funds
Insufficient” and despite of giving legal
7
CC No.1403/2023
notice, he failed to pay the cheque
amount, thereby he committed an
offence punishable under section 138 of
NI Act ?
3) What order?
6. Heard on both sides and I have also perused the
entire materials available on record.
7. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative,
Point No.2 : In the Affirmative,
Point No.3 : As per the final order for thefollowing:-
REASONS
POINTS NO.1 and 2 :
Both points 1 and 2 are taken up together for common
discussion to avoid repetition of facts.
8
CC No.1403/2023
8. It is the case of the complainant that, the accused
was the President of the Nayandahalli Credit Co-Operative
Society Limited until 08-05-2022. On 08-05-2022 the
accused had presided the Board meeting of the complainant
society and the accused had admitted the liability of four
loans obtained by 1) B.S. Suresh vide membership No.787
outstanding amount of Rs.4,41,520/-, 2) Basavaraju V. vide
membership No.97 outstanding amount of Rs.4,37,520/- 3)
Sathish Kumar M. vide membership No.857, outstanding
amount of Rs.1,76,260/-and 4) Smt. Kamalamma vide
membership No.121, outstanding amount of Rs.3,49,940/-
totally an amount of Rs.14,05,240/-and assured in the
Board meeting to repay the entire outstanding amount to
the society admitting that accused herself had obtained the
said loans in their names and utilized the same. Admitting
the liability, the accused had issued three cheques bearing
No.781627 dated 27-10-2022 for a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-,
9
CC No.1403/2023
cheque bearing No.781628 dated 31-10-2022 for a sum of
Rs.3,00,000/- and cheque bearing No.781629 dated 04-11-
2022 for a sum of Rs.3,05,240/- totally to an amount of
Rs.14,05,240/- drawn on State Bank of India, Chandra
Layout Branch. Further it is stated that when the
complainant has presented the aforesaid cheques for
encashment through its banker State Bank of India, they
were dishonoured as ‘Funds Insufficient’ on 04-11-2022.
Further even though the complainant issued the legal
notice on 09-11-2022 by intimating the dishonour of the
cheque to the accused, the same has been served on the
accused on 10-11-2022. Further even though the notice has
been issued to the accused, the accused not repaid the
cheques amount, but sent a reply denying to pay the
cheques amount. Therefore, the accused having committed
the offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I. Act. Hence, the
complainant has come before the court with this complaint.
10
CC No.1403/2023
9. To prove the contentions of the complainant the Chief
Executive of the complainant by name Smt. R. Nagaveni
has been examined as PW1. PW-1 has filed her
examination-in-chief by way of affidavit which is replica of
complaint averments and marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-29. Out
of these Ex.P-1 is the Board Resolution, Ex.P-2 to 4 are the
cheques, Ex.P-5 to 7 are the pay-in-slips, Ex.P-8 to 10 are
the bank endorsements, Ex.P-11 is the copy of legal notice,
Ex.P-12 is the postal receipt, Ex.P-13 is the postal
acknowledgment, Ex.P-14 is the reply notice, Ex.P-15 to 18
are the membership forms, Ex.P-19 is the by-law, Ex.P-20
to 23 are the notarized copy of notices, Ex.P-24 and 25 are
the copy of account book and ledger extract and Ex.P-26 to
29 are the certified copy of receipts. Further PW-1 has
produced alleged Ex-P2 to 4 cheques which were issued by
the accused towards discharge of total loan amount of
11
CC No.1403/2023
Rs.14,05,240/-. On presentation of the said cheques same
have been returned as per the Ex.P-8 to 10 return memos
as “Funds Insufficient”. Further as per Ex-P11 the
complainant issued legal notice on 09-11-2022 through
RPAD to the accused, the same has been served, it can be
seen from Ex.P-13.
[
10. Before going to the merits of this case first of all I
would like to glance over the law pertaining to the instant
case. Admittedly the present case filed under section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act to bring home guilt against the
accused, the complainant must prove the following
ingredients of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
i) That, there is a legally enforceable debt.
ii) That the cheque was drawn from
account of bank for discharge in
whole or in part of any debt or other
liability which presuppose a legally
enforceable debt;
12
CC No.1403/2023
iii) Cheque so issued had been
returned due to insufficiency of
funds.
11. In a proceeding under section 138 of NI Act, the first
and foremost ingredient is that, the alleged cheque must be
drawn on account maintained by the accused and signature
on alleged cheque belongs to her. Admittedly the alleged
cheques are belongs to the accused. The accused has not at
all disputed about the signature as well as the cheques in
the cross-examination.
12. On perusal of Ex-P2 to 4 cheques and bankers memo
Ex-P 8 to 10 it is clear that, on presentation of said cheque
it was returned as “Funds Insufficient”. The complainant
has issued legal notice through RPAD as required under
section 138 (b) & (c) of NI Act to the address of the accused
and the same has been served on the accused. Since the
accused has not disputed the cheque and the signature, the
13
CC No.1403/2023
presumption U/s.139 of NI Act has to be drawn as held by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rangappa vs. Mohan
reported in AIR 2010(11) SCC 441.
13. It is true that, once the cheque relates to the accused
and her signature on the said cheque is proved an initial
presumption as contemplated U/s.139 of Negotiable
Instruments Act has to be raised by the court in favour of
the complainant. Sec.139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act
contemplates that it shall be presumed unless contrary is
proved that the holder of the cheque received the cheque of
the nature referred to in the Sec.138 for the discharge of
the whole or in part any debt or liability. The presumption
referred to U/s.139 of Negotiable Instruments Act is
mandatory presumption and in general presumption.
14. In view of that, the complainant Nayandahalli Credit
Co-Operative Society Ltd., is represented through its
14
CC No.1403/2023
C.E.O., by name Smt. R. Nagaveni. In order to prove the
same the complainant has produced the Board Resolution
authorising the P.W.1 to prosecute the case. The Ex.P-1
Board resolution which is clearly established that the
present complainant is having an authority to represent
the instant case on behalf of the complainant society.
Further to avail the presumption the complainant has
been examined herself as PW-1 and marked exhibits Ex.P-1
to 29 i.e., Ex.P-1 is the Board resolution, Ex.P-2 to 4 are the
cheques, Ex.P-5 to 7 are the pay-in-slips, Ex.P-8 to 10 are
the bank endorsements, Ex.P-11 is the legal notice, Ex.P-12
is the postal receipt, Ex.P-13 is the postal acknowledgment,
Ex.P-14 is the reply notice, Ex.P-15 to 18 are the
membership forms, Ex.P-19 is the By-Law, Ex.P-20 to 23
are the Demand notices, Ex.P-24 and 25 are the account
book and ledger extracts and Ex.P-26 to 29 are the
repayment receipts. Out of these documents to prove the
15
CC No.1403/2023
presumption in favour of the complainant on perusal of the
Ex.P-1 Board Resolution for the PW-1 to prosecute the
case. Ex.P-2 to 4 are the cheques bearing No.781627,
781628 and 781629 dated 27-10-2022, 31-10-2022 and
04-11-2022 respectively. Ex.P-8 to 10 are the endorsements
dated 04-11-2022 as the same is issued as a return memo
for ‘Funds Insufficient’. Further as per the Ex.P-11 is the
legal notice by which the complainant has issued the legal
notice to the accused dated 09-11-2022 and the same has
been served on the accused.
15. According to complainant this accused having taken
loan in the name of Suresh, Basavaraju and Sathish
kumar and Smt. Kamalamma and assured in the Board
meeting to repay the entire outstanding total amount of
Rs.14,05,240/-. Further this accused in furtherance of
payment admitting liability has issued the cheque bearing
No.781627, 781628 and 781629. But when the same were
16
CC No.1403/2023
presented before the bank it were returned with memo
“insufficient balance”. Further having this complainant
issued the legal notice the accused has replied the same by
denying the liability to pay. As such this complainant has
filed this case.
16. On the other hand it is the contention taken by the
accused in the cross-examination of PW-1 and also in the
defence evidence and also in the written arguments that
from 2020 to 2022 this accused has worked as a President
of the complainant society and she know the alleged
persons Suresh, Sathish, Smt. Kamalamma and
Basavaraju as they are the members of the society. But she
does not know the loan has been sanctioned to them in her
period. Further she deposed that the complainant has not
issued any final notice to the accused, but only legal notice
has been sent, for that the accused has issued the reply.
17
CC No.1403/2023
Further it is also deposed that the house of the accused and
the society is in the same building and accused is the
owner of the concerned building. Further the society is in
the ground floor and the house of the accused is in the first
floor. Further when the accused was the president of the
concerned society at that time she is to keep personal
documents and cheque books in the society. Meanwhile at
that time some cheques were stolen. Further for that the
accused has issued directions to the bank for stop payment
for those alleged stolen cheques. Further at the time of her
period as a President there was no any illegal activities
carried in the society for that she has given the certificate
to the court. Further she has not issued the cheques for
the purpose of repaying the loan amount as she has not at
all received any loan from the complainant. Therefore
prays to dismiss the complaint.
18
CC No.1403/2023
17. In support of the contentions of the accused she has
examined as DW-1 and marked Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-6. Ex.D-1
and 2 are the Audit reports, Ex.D-3 is the letter written by
the accused to the Branch Manager SBI, Ex.D-4 is the
letter issued by the SBI, Ex.D-5 is the certified copy of the
order sheet in PCR No.1963/2024 and Ex.D-6 is the
complaint copy filed in PCR No.1963/2024.
18. Here as already stated that as per the judgments
passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in many
judgments that when the accused admits the cheque and
the signature in that, definitely the initial presumption is
contemplated in favour of the complainant. Further the
complainant having led the oral and documentary evidence
and got marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-29, it is very clear that
complainant has contemplated the presumption in its
favour.
19
CC No.1403/2023
19. On the other hand as the accused in the process of
rebutting the presumption which is contemplated in favour
of the complainant has cross-examined the PW-1 and also
led the defence evidence and marked Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-6.
Here it is very much necessary to consider the defences
taken by the accused one by one with the clear discussion.
Firstly I take up the first defence of the accused that the
even though the accused admits that the signature and the
cheques belongs to the accused that the accused takes
defence that the cheques have been stolen. Further for that
the accused has stated that the complainant society and the
house of the accused is in the same building and the
members and the staff of the complainant very often comes
to the house of the accused and this accused being the
President of the complainant society has to keep the
personal documents and cheques in the society. As such
the complainant society has stolen the cheque and misused
20
CC No.1403/2023
the cheques and filed this false complaint. Here even
though the accused has taken such contention and marked
the Ex.D-3 i.e., letter i.e., intimating the SBI Bank to
block the three cheques bearing No.781627, 781628 and
781629. Further as per Ex.D-4 the SBI has issued the
letter stating that it has stopped the payment on 24-08-
2024. Further it is also seen from the Ex.D-5 and Ex.D-6
that the accused has filed the private complaint against
the complainant punishable U/s.408, 409, 420, 120(b) 468,
417 and 161 r/w 34 of IPC.
20. Here as the contentions taken by the accused as the
cheques are stolen and she has instructed the bank to stop
the payment and also lodged the private complaint against
the complainant. But in the cross-examination of the DW-1
she has admitted that she has not lodged any police
complaint against the complainant and also she deposed
that when she has been to register the police compliant the
21
CC No.1403/2023
police have not registered the same therefore she has
issued the directions to the bank to stop the payment. But
she also admits that she has not taken any legal action
against the concerned police. Further she deposed and
admits that the cheques are returned for the reason ‘funds
insufficient’ but not for stop payment. Further in the cross-
examination the DW-1 has admitted that Ex.P-8 to 10 are
given as ‘funds insufficient’. By this admission made by the
accused it is very clear that whatever the documents
produced by the accused as per Ex.D-3 and Ex.D-4 are not
going to help the case of the accused that, it is only a
direction issued by the accused and a letter correspondence
to the accused as per Ex.D-4, but in this case when the
cheques are presented before the bank they are returned
with endorsement “insufficient funds”. As such whatever
the contentions taken by the accused cannot be believed,
because in this case the cheques which are presented are
22
CC No.1403/2023
returned for the reason “insufficient funds” but not as the
stop payment. Further with regard to the contention of the
accused that for misusing of the cheques this accused has
filed the private compliant against the complainant as per
private compliant No.1963/2024, but in that in the cross-
examination of DW-1 she denies that she has not
mentioned any cheque number or the cheque form in the
private complaint but for that she has filed the private
complaint by mentioning cheque and the receipts
collectively. Here with this regard it is very much relevant
for this court to peruse the Ex.D-6 i.e., the private
complaint, but in that nowhere the accused has stated
about the cheques which are presented in this case and also
about the stealing of the cheques by the complainant
society. Further she also does not filed any police complaint
and private complaint with regard to the cheques. As such
in my considered opinion it can be said that the accused
23
CC No.1403/2023
has not proved that the cheques have been stolen by the
complainant and the same were misused by the
complainant.
21. Further the second defence taken by the accused is
that there is no any legally recoverable debt, is concerned
as per the contentions of the accused that she has not
borrowed any loan and she has not bound to pay any loan.
But on the other hand it is the contentions taken by the
complainant that the accused being the President of the
complainant society on 08-05-2022 has presided the Board
meeting and admitted the liability of the four loans
obtained by B.S. Suresh, Basavaraju, Sathish Kumar and
Smt. Kamalamma to the total extent of Rs.14,05,240/- and
for that she has admitted that she will repay the entire
outstanding amount to the society admitting that accused
herself has obtained the said loans in their names and
utilized the same. Further admitting the liability the
24
CC No.1403/2023
accused has issued these three cheques bearing No.781627,
781628 and 781629. Here as per the contentions taken by
the accused she has taken contention in the cross-
examination of PW-1 that she has not produced any
document to show that the amount has been deposited to
the account of the accused and there is no any more to show
that the amount has been deposited to the account of the
accused by way of DD or by cheque. But for that PW-1 has
deposed that the accused being the President of the society
had received the amount by cash. Here it is also a point to
be considered in this case that in the cross-examination of
the PW-1 she also admits that at the time of issuing the
loan and at the time of disbursement of the loan there is
no need for obtaining the loan application and also the loan
amount has to be disbursed to the loan account of the
borrower and also the loan amount has to be paid to that
account. For that the P-W1 has deposed that as the
25
CC No.1403/2023
accused was the President she has looked into that.
Further with regard to the contentions taken by the
complainant PW-1 that for about some time the accused
has repaid the loan monthly installments, but stopped
subsequently. Here with regard to the contentions taken
by the accused, accused has even though stated there is no
legally recoverable debt, but in this case it is peculiar case
whereas accused directly not obtained the loan from the
complainant bank, but it is said that she has obtained the
loan in the name of other four members i.e., Suresh,
Basavaraju, Sathish Kumar and Smt. Kamalamma. But in
repayment of that loan she having admitted the fact that
she has obtained the loan in their name she has issued the
cheque in the board resolution dated 08-05-2022. At this
point of time it is very much necessary to peruse the Board
Resolution. On perusal of the same it depicts the same as
that of the contentions taken by the complainant. But on
26
CC No.1403/2023
the other hand the accused counsel in the cross-
examination of the PW-1 very clearly object and tried to
invalidate the Ex.P-1 by stating that it is a forged document
and the same has been created by the complainant society.
Here as the accused has stated that it is the forged
document, but it has to be seen that there is an abundant
opportunity to the accused to take a legal action against
the complainant society if they have forged the document
as per Ex.P-1 against her, as she was a President of the
society at that time, but she has not taken any legal action
as such whatever the oral and documentary evidence
produced by the complainant is accepted by this court.
Further as such it can be said that the contention of the
accused that there is no any legally recoverable debt
cannot be believed.
22. Further it is also held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India and also in the presumption U/s.118 and 139 of the
27
CC No.1403/2023
N.I.Act when the cheque has been issued and cheque
belongs to the accused ans the signature of the accused
admitted by the accused there is a legally recoverable debt
for which the accused has issued the cheques for repayment
of the same. Therefore in my considered opinion it is
presumed that there is legally recoverable debt against the
accused.
23. Therefore, it can be said that the complainant has
successfully proved that the accused was due the amount
as mentioned in the cheques and it is legally recoverable
debt. Contrary to that, in order to prove the defence of the
accused, she has not produced sufficient materials before
the court. Further as such on the failure of the accused to
prove the same it is presumed that the cheques were
issued for the legally recoverable debt. Further on the
other hand it is also clear that the accused has not proved
that the entire repayment was made by the accused, as
28
CC No.1403/2023
such it cannot be said that the accused has repaid entire
loan amount and she was not due the amount as
mentioned in the alleged cheque.
24. Therefore, according to the complainant the Ex.P-2
to 4 are cheques were issued for the repayment of
outstanding agreed loan amount. In this regard, it is well
settled principles of law that, when the accused admitted
her cheques as well as signatures on cheques it shall be
presumed that the accused had issued cheques for
repayment of legally recoverable debt. Under such
circumstances the burden shifts on the accused to prove
that, she has not issued Ex.P2 to 4 cheques for repayment
of loan amount. However, the accused has not produced
relevant and cogent evidence before this court.
25. Further with regard to this case I would like to rely
upon a judgment of our Hon’ble Supreme Court in
29
CC No.1403/2023
Crl.A.Nos.1233-1235 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Crl)
Nos.7430-7432/22 @ D.No.13470/2019 in the matter of
P.Rasiya V/s Abdul Nazer and another, wherein their
lordships have held that,
” in a cheque bounce case
U/Sec.138 of the NI Act the
complainant is not required to spell
out in the complaint, the nature of
transaction or source of funds since
the onus is on the accused to prove
that the cheque was issued not
towards a debt or liability.”
Therefore in view of the above ratio of our Hon’ble Apex
Court, when the accused admitted the cheque in dispute
and signature on it is belongs to his, it shall be presumed
that the said cheque was issued by the accused for
discharge of legally recoverable debt unless contrary is
proved by the accused. In the case on hand the accused has
30
CC No.1403/2023
failed to prove that he has not issued Ex.P2 cheque for
discharge of legally recoverable debt.
26. Therefore, looking into these all documents and facts
and circumstances, I am of the considerable opinion that,
the complainant has successfully proved that, the accused
had issued alleged cheques for repayment of due agreed
loan amount and it is a legally recoverable debt.
27. However, in the case on hand, the accused has failed
to rebut the evidence of PW1. As such I am of the opinion
that, the accused has issued Ex.P2 to 4 cheques for
discharge of legally recoverable debt. Therefore the
presumption has to be raised in favour of the complainant
as contemplated under section 139 of N.I. Act.
28. Thus, it is clear that, the complainant has complied all
the essential ingredients of Section 138 of NI Act to punish
the accused for the alleged offence. Since the accused has
31
CC No.1403/2023
not disputed the cheque and the signature the presumption
U/s.139 of NI Act has to be drawn as held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case reported in AIR 2020 Supreme
Court 945 in the matter of APS Forex Services Pvt.
Ltd. vs. Shakti International Fashion Linkers and
others wherein their lordships held that,
Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of
1881), S.138, S139 -Dishonour of
cheque – Legally enforceable debt
or liability – Presumption as to –
Accused admitting issuance of
cheque, his signature on cheque
and that cheque in question was
issued for second time after the
earlier cheques were dishonoured –
Once the issuance and signature
on cheque is admitted, there is
always a presumption in favour of
complaint that there exist legally
enforceable debt or liability- No
32
CC No.1403/2023
evidence led by accused to rebut the
presumption – Plea by accused that
cheque was given by way of
security and same has been
misused by complainant, not
tenable – Accused liable to be
convicted.
29. I have also relied upon a judgment of our Hon’ble
Apex Court reported in (2018) 8 Supreme Court Cases
469 in the matter of T.P. Murugan (Dead) through
Legal Representatives vs. Bhojan wherein their
lordships have held that,
‘mere raising a doubt sans cogent
evidence, with respect to the
circumstances, presumption under
section 139 of NI Act cannot be
discharged ‘
So on going through the above judgments of our Hon’ble
Supreme Court, when the accused admitted issuance of
33
CC No.1403/2023
cheques and her signature on cheques there is always a
presumption in favour of complainant that there exist
legally enforceable debt or liability when no material
evidence lead by accused to rebut the presumption. Even
also cleared from the above ratio that once there is no
rebuttal evidence, accept oral defence, presumption cannot
be held to be rebutted. In the case on hand, the accused
has not produced relevant and cogent evidence to rebut the
case of the complainant.
30. Therefore the materials placed by the complainant
corroborates with each other with respect to the
involvement of legally recoverable debt. So these all
documents are clearly established that, the alleged cheque
amount is legally recoverable debt. So in the absence of
disproof of complainant case, I have no hesitation to believe
the case of the complainant i.e., it has proved their case as
per the standard of proof by producing relevant and cogent
34
CC No.1403/2023
evidence. Even the entire materials indicates to the court
that, complainant has filed the complaint in a proper
manner i.e., within the stipulated time under section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act and further there is no
endeavors on behalf of the accused to disprove the case of
the complainant by producing relevant and cogent evidence.
Accordingly I am of the considered opinion that the accused
is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under
section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and I answered
these points No.1 and 2 in the affirmative.
POINT No.3
31. In view of the findings on points No.1 and 2 to
compensate the holder in due course the accused who has
issued cheques without having sufficient funds in his
account has to be punished suitably. Therefore considering
the facts and circumstances, the accused is liable to pay the
35
CC No.1403/2023
above amount with the reasonable interest as stated as
compensation and expenses to complainant. Hence, I
proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
Acting U/s.255(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is
convicted for the offence punishable U/s.138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to
pay a fine Rs.18,55,232,- (Rupees Eighteen
Lakhs fifty five thousand two hundred
and thirty two only)
In default of payment of fine amount she
shall under go simple imprisonment for 06
(six) months.
Further, acting U/s.357(1) of Cr.P.C. a sum
of Rs.18,50,232,- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs
fifty thousand two hundred and thirty
two only) is order to be paid to complainant
36
CC No.1403/2023
as compensation and remaining amount of
Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only)
shall go to the state.
It is made it clear that in view of section
421 of Cr.P.C. the liability of accused to pay the
compensation will not be absolved even if she
under go default sentence.
The bail bond executed by the accused and
surety stand canceled.
Supply free copy of judgment to the
accused.
(Typed directly on computer to my dictation by the
stenographer in the chamber, corrected and then pronounced by
me in the open court on this the 19th day of February 2025)
Digitally signed by
NIRMALA
NIRMALA Date: 2026.02.23
13:17:32 +0530
(Smt. NIRMALA .S.)
XXVI ACJM, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined for the Complainant:
PW.1 : Smt. R. Nagaveni.
37
CC No.1403/2023
Witness examined for the accused:
D.W.1 : Smt. M. Nirmala
List of Documents marked for the Complainant:
Ex. P-1 Board Resolution Ex. P-2 to 4 Cheques
Ex. P-2(a) to 4(a) Signature of the accused
Ex. P-5 to 7 Challans
Ex. P-8 to 10 Bank Endorsements
Ex. P-11 Copy of legal notice
Ex. P-12 Postal receipt
Ex. P-13 Postal acknowledgment
Ex. P-14 Reply notice
Ex. P-15 to 18 Darkastu forms
Ex. P-19 By-Law
Ex. P-20 to 23 Notarized copy of notices
Ex. P-24 and 25 Copy of account book
and ledger extract
Ex. P-26 to 29 Certified copy of receipts
38
CC No.1403/2023
List of Documents marked for the accused:
Ex.D-1 & 2 Audit Reports
Ex.D-3 Letter
Ex.D-4 Letter
Ex.D-5 Order sheet in PCR No.1963/24
Ex.D-6 PCR complaint copy.
(Smt. NIRMALA .S.)
XXVI ACJM, Bengaluru.
