Bangalore District Court
Pramod Bopanna vs Dr. Amit Agarwal on 21 April, 2026
KABC0A0007572025
IN THE COURT OF THE LXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE AT MAYO HALL
BENGALURU, (CCH-73)
Present:
Sri. Sreepada N,
B.Com., L.L.M.,
LXXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Dated this the 21st day of April 2026
Crl. Appeal. No.25060/2025
Appellant/ Mr. Pramod Bopanna,
Accused:- S/o Rajappa,
Aged about 38 years,
R/at Maruthinagar,
10th Main, 14th Cross,
New Thippasandra Post,
Bangalore-560075.
[By Sri. K.C. Manjunatha - Adv.,]
V/s
Respondent/ Dr. Amit Agarwal,
Complainant: S/o R.P. Agarwal,
Aged about 48 years,
R/at No.633, 1st Cross,
4th Main, Domlur 2nd Stage,
Bangalore-560071.
[By Sri. Rajith H.M - Adv.,]
2 Crl.Appeal No.25060/2025
JUDGMENT
This appeal is by the Accused before the trial
court, who suffered the judgment of conviction for the
offence punishable U/Sec.138 of NI Act passed by
XXXIII ACJM, Bengaluru, in CC.No.53672/2021,
dtd.16.1.2025, challenging the validity of the
judgment.
2. For the sake of convenience the parties
hereinafter will be referred to with their ranking
assigned before the trial court.
3. The facts of the case:-
The Complainant initiated private complaint
under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., against the Accused,
alleging that the Complainant known to the Accused
for the last six years. In the month of March 2017,
the Accused approached the Complainant along with
his friend Sri.V.Bhaskar and requested for financial
assistance by way of hand loan in a sum of
Rs.30,00,000/- to meet his urgent necessities and
commitments. Having considered his request, the
Complainant arranged the amount and lent a sum of
Rs.30,00,000/- by cash in three parts i.e., a sum of
3 Crl.Appeal No.25060/2025Rs.7,00,000/- on 17.04.2017, Rs.8,00,000/- on
11.05.2017 and Rs.15,00,000/- on 15.06.2017 on a
condition that it should be returned to the
Complainant within one year from the date of
availment of the hand loan. After the said period
when the Complainant demanded for repayment of
the said amount, the Accused failed to repay the
same and went on dodging it till 2019 on one or the
pretext. Finally, the Complainant lodged a Police
complaint against the Accused on 28.02.2020 before
Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station and due to the
pandemic Covid-19 lock down from the month of
March 2020, the said police did not take any legal
action till relaxation from the government lock down
rules and finally on 27.07.2020, the Accused had
visited the said Police Station and given a written
statement stating that he would pay on or before
27.08.2020 Rs.10,00,000/- against the said loan
and he would pay the remaining amount of
Rs.20,00,000/- by the end of December 2020.
Thereafter, the Accused did not comply with his
words and when the Complainant demanded the
hand loan, the Accused finally issued cheque bearing
dtd: 27.12.2020 for Rs.28,00,000/- and assured that
4 Crl.Appeal No.25060/2025
balance of Rs.2,00,000/- would be pay within three
months from the date of the cheque. When the
Complainant presented the said cheque for
encashment, it came to be dishonored for the reason
“Drawer’s signature differs” vide memo dtd:
13.01.2021. Thereafter, the Complainant approached
the Accused intimating the said fact of dishonor for
which the accused asked him to represent the said
cheque once again after ten days and accordingly,
the Complainant represented it for encashment on
9.02.2021, but again it came to be dishonored for the
reason “Drawer’s signature differs” vide
endorsement dtd: 9.02.2021. Therefore, the
Complainant got issued legal notice to the Accused
on 3.03.2021 calling upon him to pay the cheque
amount. Inspite of issuance of said notice, the
Accused did not pay the cheque amount and thereby,
the Appellant has committed the offense punishable
under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Thereafter the Complainant approached the Trial
Court for appropriate legal action against the
Accused.
5 Crl.Appeal No.25060/2025
4. Pursuant to summons the Accused entered
appearance through his Counsel before the Trial
Court. The substance of the accusation was read
over and explained to the Accused in the language
known to him. The Accused pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried. The Complainant got examined
himself as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11
documents and closed his side. The Accused got
examined as DW.1, but not marked any documents
to prove her defense.
5. The trial court after hearing the counsel for
Complainant, convicted the Accused for the offence
punishable U/Sec.138 of NI Act vide Judgment dtd.
16.1.2025.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment of
conviction, the Accused is in appeal on the following
grounds:
1. The Complainant has failed to prove his
case, but the Trial Court has not
appreciated the evidence and exhibits of
the PW.1 and DW.1 properly.
2. The Complainant has not produced any
piece of documents to show tthat he
paid alleged loan amount of
6 Crl.Appeal No.25060/2025Rs.30,00,000/- to the Accused. This
was not observed by the Trial Court.
3. In the evidence of DW.1, the Accused has
clearly stated, he has not issued Cheque
in question for repayment of alleged loan
amount to the Complainant. The
Accused taken specific defens that he
has not borrowed any loan from the
Complainant and not issued Cheque in
question to the Complainant. This
statement was not appreciated by the
Trial Court.
4. No legal notice was issued to the correct
address of the Accused.
5. The Ex.P.1 Cheque was not issued by the
Accused for repayment of alleged loan
amount. The signature in the alleged
Cheque was denied by the Accused. The
said signature was forged by the
Complainant. Therefore, the provisions
of Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act is not attracted. The
bank also issued an endorsement that
the drawers signature in Cheque in
question is differs. This was not
appreciated by the Trial Court.
7 Crl.Appeal No.25060/2025
6. The Ex.P.8 complaint given to the police
was not properly verified by the Trial
Court.
7. The Complainant is a doctor by
profession. He know the law. He is not a
lay person. If he paid huge amount he
could have obtained some documents
from the Accused. The Complainant has
not paid any amount to the Accused.
Therefore, he has not obtained any
documents like receipt, promissory note
or agreement from the Accused. This
was not carefully observed by the Trial
Court.
8. The Accused has not issued Cheque in
question for repayment of alleged loan
amount. Therefore, the provisions of
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act is not attracted. The legal notice was
not served to the Accused, therefore, the
provisions under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act is not
attracted.
9. The burden of establishing the fact of
legal liability is on the respondent. The
Respondent has not discharged its onus
of proving the liability that the Appellant
issued the Cheque towards the legal
8 Crl.Appeal No.25060/2025
liability. The Trial Court totally failed to
appreciate the facts and has
erroneously passed an order that there
is a legal liability between the Appellant
and the Respondent.
10. The Trial Court has not properly
understood the scope and ambit of
Section 138 and 139 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act to the effect that nature
of Cheques and also regarding
presumption and the rebuttal of the
presumption and also the question of
rebuttal of presumption.
11. The Trial Court has grossly erred in
imposing the fine amount.
12. Under the above grounds the Appellant
sought for acquittal by allowing the appeal.
7. Heard both sides.
8. Perused the evidence, documents on record
and also impugned Judgment of conviction passed
by the Trial Court.
9 Crl.Appeal No.25060/2025
9. On re-appreciation of the evidence,
documents on record, the following points would
emerge for the consideration of this court.
1. Whether the Appellant proves
that the cheque in question
was not issued towards any
legally recoverable debt?
2. Whether the Judgment of
conviction passed by the Trial
Court calls for interference by
the hands of this court?
3. What Order?
10. My finding on the above points are as
under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative.
Point No.2 : In the Negative.
Point No.3 : As per final order for
the following :
REASONS
11. POINT NOs.1 and 2:-
Since the above two points are interlinked, in
order to avoid repetition of facts the above points
have been taken up together for consideration.
12. Before re-appreciating the evidence on
record, it is necessary to refer some of the latest
10 Crl.Appeal No.25060/2025
rulings of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2019
(3) KCCR 2473 (SC) (Basalingappa V/s
Mudibasappa), the Hon’ble Apex Court while
considering several earlier rulings on the offence
U/Sec.138 of NI Act and also on the presumption
U/Sec.118 and 139 of NI Act, at Para 23 was
pleased to observe as follows:
23. We having noticed the ratio
laid down by this Court in above cases
on Sections 118(a) and 139, we now
summarise the principles enumerated
by this Court in following manner:-
(i) 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.
(ii) The presumption under
Section 139 is a rebuttable
presumption 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.
(iii) To rebut the presumption, it
is open for the Accused to rely on
evidence led by him or Accused can
also rely on the materials submitted
by the Complainant in order to raise a
probable defence. Inference of
preponderance of probabilities can be
11 Crl.Appeal No.25060/2025
drawn not only from the materials
brought on record by the parties but
also by reference to the circumstances
upon which they rely.
(iv) That it is not necessary for the
Accused to come in the witness box in
support of his defence, Sec.139
imposed an evidentiary burden and
not a persuasive burden.
(v) It is not necessary for the
Accused to come in the witness box to
support his defence.
13. In another ruling reported in AIR 2010 SC
1898 (Rangappa V/s Mohan), observed as under:-
“Existence of legally recoverable
debt or liability- The presumption
mandated by Section 139 of the Act
does indeed include the existence of a
legally enforceable debt or liability.
This is of course in the nature of a
rebuttable presumption and it is open
to the Accused to raise a defence
wherein the existence of a legally
enforceable debt or liability can be
contested. However, there can be no
doubt that there is an initial
presumption which favours the
Complainant. 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
instruments. While Section 138 of the
12 Crl.Appeal No.25060/2025Act specifies a strong criminal remedy
in relation to the dishonour of
cheques, the rebuttable presumption
under Section 139, is a device to
prevent undue delay in the course of
litigation. However, it must be
remembered that the offence made
punishable by Section 138 can be
better described as a regulatory
offence since the bouncing of a cheque
is largely in the nature of a civil
wrong whose impact is usually
confined to the private parties
involved in commercial transactions.
In such a scenario, the test of
proportionality should guide the
construction and interpretation of
reverse onus clauses and the Accused/
defendant cannot be expected to
discharge an unduly high standard or
proof. In the absence of compelling
justifications, reverse onus clauses
usually impose an evidentiary burden
and not a persuasive burden. Keeping
this in view, it is a settled position
that when an Accused has to rebut the
presumption under Section 139, the
standard of proof for doing so is that
of ‘preponderance of probabilities’.
Therefore, if the Accused is able to
raise a probable defence which creates
doubts about the existence of a legally
enforceable debt or liability, the
prosecution can fail. The Accused can
rely on the materials submitted by the
Complainant and it is conceivable that
in some cases the Accused may not
13 Crl.Appeal No.25060/2025need to adduce evidence of his/her
own.”
14. Keeping in view the broad principles laid
down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, let me re-appreciate
the evidence and documents on record.
15. The definite case of the
Complainant/Respondent is that the Accused is the
friend of the Complainant. The Accused had
approached the Complainant along with his friend
Sri.V.Bhaskar and requested for financial assistance
by way of hand loan in a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- to
meet his urgent necessities. The Accused being
known to him, as such he had arranged the amount
and lent a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- by cash in three
parts i.e., a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- on 17.04.2017,
Rs.8,00,000/- on 11.05.2017 and Rs.15,00,000/- on
15.06.2017 on a condition that it should be returned
to the Complainant within one year from the date of
availment of the hand loan. Even after receipt of the
said amount and even after lapse of more than one
year the Accused did not repaid the same, as such
the Complainant lodged complaint against the
Accused on 28.2.2020 before Ramamurthy Nagar
14 Crl.Appeal No.25060/2025
Police Station and due to the pandemic Covid-19 lock
down from the month of March 2020, the said police
did not take any legal action till relaxation from the
Covid-19 Pandemic. However, on 27.07.2020, the
Accused had visited the Police Station and given
written statement stating that he would pay on or
before 27.08.2020 Rs.10,00,000/- against the said
loan and he would pay the remaining amount of
Rs.20,00,000/- by the end of December 2020. Even
though, he has given such undertaking, but he had
not repaid the said amount. When the Complainant
again demanded the hand loan, the Accused finally
issued cheque bearing dtd: 27.12.2020 for
Rs.28,00,000/- and assured that balance of
Rs.2,00,000/- would be pay within three months.
When the Complainant presented the said cheque for
encashment, it came to be dishonored for the reason
“Drawer’s signature differs”. When the Complainant
intimated the same to the Accused and asked him to
return the amount, he assured and asked him to
represent the said cheque once again after ten days
and accordingly, the Complainant represented it for
encashment on 9.02.2021, but again it came to be
dishonored for the reason “Drawer’s signature
15 Crl.Appeal No.25060/2025
differs” vide endorsement dtd: 9.02.2021. Therefore,
the Complainant got issued legal notice to the
Accused on 3.03.2021 calling upon him to pay the
cheque amount. However, the said notice returned as
addressee left and another notice returned as
unclaimed. Therefore, the Complainant constrained
to file the complaint under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act.
16. The Complainant in order to prove the
averments of complaint got examined himself as
PW.1 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to
Ex.P.11. On the other hand, the Accused himself
examined as DW.1 but not marked any documents.
17. Let me go through the documentary
evidence produced by the Complainant before the
Trial Court. Ex.P.1 is the Cheque issued by the
Accused dtd: 27.12.2020. Ex.P.2 & Ex.P.3 are the
Cheque return memo dtd: 13.1.2021 and 10.2.2021.
Ex.P.4 is the Office copy of Legal Notice dtd:
3.3.2021. Ex.P.5 is the Postal Receipts. Ex.P.6 &
Ex.P.7 are the returned Postal Covers. Ex.P.8 is the
Complaint given by the Complainant against the
Accused dtd: 28.2.2020. Ex.P.9 is the certified copy
16 Crl.Appeal No.25060/2025of Statement of the Accused, Ex.P.10 is the certified
copy of plea and Ex.P.11 is the certified copy of 313
Statement. The present complaint has been filed
before the Trial Court on 7.5.2021. On perusal of all
the above documents with date of filing of the
complaint and dates of documents, it is clear that
before filing of the complaint, the Complainant has
complied with all the requirements of Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act and the present
complaint is filed well within the period of limitation
and it is in accordance with the provisions of
Negotiable Instruments Act.
18. In this case, the Accused examined as
DW.1, but not produced any documents. In his
evidence and as well as in the cross-examination
made to PW.1 he has taken up specific contention
that he has not availed any hand loan from the
Complainant and there was no necessity for him to
avail hand loan from the Complainant. Further taken
up contention that the Complainant by misusing his
signature on blank Cheque forged his signature and
presented the same to gain unlawfully and filed the
present complaint. Further also taken up contention
17 Crl.Appeal No.25060/2025
that he has not issued Cheque to the Complainant for
payment of the amount as alleged by the
Complainant. Further also taken up contention that
the Complainant is his friend and he supported him
in hospital business and as earlier he was running
the hospital by name Medihope Hospital and during
Covid-19 Pandemic he requested him to look after the
maintenance of the hospital and housekeeping in the
hospital and at that time he has been allotted one
chamber in the said hospital and in the said chamber
he had kept his personal documents in the chamber
of the hospital. The Complainant without his
knowledge taken his documents and blank Cheque
and filled the particulars and also forged his
signatures on the Cheque and filed the present
complaint. Further also taken up contention that the
Complainant has close link with the Police and the
police forcibly obtained his statement as per the
instruction of the Complainant. The Complainant
later apologized him to forget the matter and he is
continually be with him as a friend.
19. It is the argument of the Learned Counsel
for the Appellant herein is that the Complainant has
18 Crl.Appeal No.25060/2025
not proved his case and there is no financial
transaction between the Complainant and the
Accused. There is no documents have been produced
by the Complainant to show that he has paid the
amount of Rs.30,00,000/- to the Accused. In the
absence of any documentary evidence would create
doubt about the genuineness of the transaction.
According to Section 269-SS of Income Tax Act insists
that all transactions involving of Rs.20,000/- and
above should be through account pay Cheques only.
The Trial Court has not properly verified the Ex.P.8
complaint. Even though he stated that the Accused
and another Bhaskar had borrowed
Rs.Rs.29,50,000/- from him. But in the complaint he
has mentioned that the Accused has borrowed only
Rs.30,00,000/- from him. When the Cheque in
question has been dishonored for ‘signature differs’ it
is clearly goes to show that the Complainant by
misusing the blank signed Cheque filed false case
against the Accused. Accordingly, he prayed to allow
the appeal by acquitting the Accused.
20. In support of his arguments the Learned
Counsel for the Appellant has relied upon the
following decisions:
19 Crl.Appeal No.25060/2025
1) S. Ashok Kumar V/s S. Boopal Madras reported in
2021 SCC Online Mad 2325.
2) Sasseryil Joseph V/s Devassia on 22.9.2000.
3) The Bidar Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., V/s Mr.
Girish ILR 2021 KAR 2437.
4) Amulya Patowary V/s Amarendra Choudhury
2014 5 Gauhati Law Reports.
21. It is the argument of the Learned Counsel
for the Complainant/Respondent is that the Trial
Court has properly appreciated the oral and
documentary evidence and as well as the admission
given by the Accused and properly convicted the
Accused. Further argued that the Accused has not
placed any materials to show that the Complainant
has misused the blank signed Cheque. When the
Accused has failed to rebut the case of the
Complainant by placing sufficient materials and
when the Complainant has proved his case by
placing sufficient oral and documentary evidence,
this Court cannot interfere with the judgment passed
by the Trial Court. Accordingly, he prayed to confirm
the judgment of the Trial Court.
20 Crl.Appeal No.25060/2025
22. In support of his arguments the Learned
Counsel for the Respondent has relied upon the
following decisions:
1) 2023 ACD (SC) AIR Online 2022 SC 1606.
2) 2025 RJ JP 37822 of High Court of Judicature for
Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur.
23. Let me go through the judgment of the Trial
Court with the evidence of both parties and Ex.P.1 to
Ex.P.11 placed by the Complainant. It is an admitted
fact that though the Accused had very much
contended that his Cheque has been stolen by the
Complainant and by misusing the same filed this
case. However, on careful perusal of Ex.P.9 i.e.,
statement given by the Accused before the Police
reveals that he has clearly undertaken that he has
received the amount of Rs.30,00,000/- from the
Complainant and he will repay the same at the
earliest. Further as pointed out by the Trial Court in
its judgment, though the Accused had taken up
defence that forcibly his undertaking letter has been
taken by the Police in the Police Station, however till
today he has not taken any action against the said
police or against the Complainant for having obtained
21 Crl.Appeal No.25060/2025
his signature to the Ex.P.9 forcibly. Even DW.1 has
clearly admitted in his cross-examination that till
today he has not taken any legal action against the
Complainant and the concerned police. So, this
admission and facts and circumstances of this case
reveals that the contention of the Accused that his
signature had been obtained forcibly on Ex.P.9 is
wrong and for the purpose of this case he has taken
such defense in this case, but not at all proved the
same. Moreover, no prudent man should not keep
quite if his signature has been forcibly obtained and
his Cheque has been presented by misusing his
signature etc. If really he did not given Ex.P.1 to the
Complainant and he did not given any undertaking
as per Ex.P.9 before the Police, definitely he would
have taken proper legal action against the
Complainant before Police. Further as pointed out by
the Trial Court in its judgment, the signature of the
Accused obtained on Ex.P.9 on 27.7.2020 and the
present complaint has been filed on 7.5.2021, in
between this period the Accused has not taken any
legal action, as such it appears that in order to
escape from the liability to pay Cheque amount the
Accused has taken such defense. Therefore, the
22 Crl.Appeal No.25060/2025
conclusion arrived by the Trial Court that there was
nothing on record to show that the police have taken
signature on Ex.P.9 and threatened him etc., is
proper and correct.
24. Further it is pertinent to note here that the
Accused in his evidence stated that though he has
taken legal action against the Complainant, but he
intimated the obtaining signature on Ex.P.9, but in
this regard except his oral testimony no other
documentary evidence is produced. Further as
pointed out by the Trial Court in its judgment in
Ex.P.9 it is clearly mentioned by the Accused himself
that he has received Rs.30,00,000/- from the
Complainant, but the Accused has agreed to repay it
to the Complainant.
25. It is pertinent to note here that during the
course of arguments, the Learned Counsel for the
Appellant submitted that though the alleged
transaction had been taken place as per complaint in
the month of March 2017, but accoridng to complaint
the Cheque in question had been issued by the
Accused on 27.12.2020. Therefore, within the period
of 03 years, the Complainant had not taken any legal
23 Crl.Appeal No.25060/2025
action against the Accused to recover the said
amount. On the other hand, according to the
Complainant, the Cheque has been issued on
27.12.2020 i.e., after lapse of 03 years from the date
of alleged transaction. Therefore, it is a time barred
debt and cannot be called as legally recoverable
debt. Therefore, the complaint filed by the
Complainant is not maintainable and liable to be
dismissed as barred by law of limitation.
26. Admittedly, the Accused has not taken such
defense in the Trial Court or in the appeal memo. On
the other hand, the Accused has failed to prove that
he has not executed Ex.P.9 before the Police Station.
Moreover, the date of Ex.P.9 is 27.7.2020, but in this
document admitted about the availment of loan of
Rs.30,00,000/- from the Complainant. Therefore, this
Court cannot say that the time barred debt cannot be
enforceable. On the other hand, the Accused himself
had admitted his liability and in order to repay the
loan amount he has issued the Ex.P.1 Cheque.
Therefore, under Section 25(3) of Indian Contract Act
the Accused by executing Ex.P.9 and issuing the
Cheque for time barred debt and is dishonoured, for
24 Crl.Appeal No.25060/2025
save the limitation for recovery proceedings, hence,
the Accused cannot take the said advantage. Further
according to the decision which relied upon by the
Learned Counsel for the Complainant i.e., 2023 ACD
(SC) AIR Online 2022 SC 1606 and also by
considering the facts and circumstances of this case,
this Court is of the opinion that the Cheque in
question has been issued by the Accused in faovur of
the Complainant for legally payable debt.
27. As aforesaid, the Accused by executing the
Ex.P.9 has clearly acknowledged about the debt and
then issued Ex.P.1 for discharge of legally payable
debt is incurred in the 2017. Therefore, prima-facie it
can be said that it is a legally recoverable debt.
Further when the Accused has failed to prove that he
has not executed Ex.P.9 in favour of the
Complainant, thus there being acknowledgment by
the Accused about availment of Rs.30,00,000/- loan
from the Complainant, it cannot be said that the
complaint in respect of the such debt was not
maintainable.
28. Further it is pertinent to note that after
dishonour of the Cheque the Complainant issued
25 Crl.Appeal No.25060/2025
legal notice to the Accused and one notice returned
as unclaimed and another notice returned as
address not found. When the Cheque is issued and it
has been dishonored, the statutory notice issued by
the Respondent. It is for the Accused to discharge the
legal presumption available under Section 118 and
139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by replying to
the said notice. In the case on hand, the Accused has
not at all replied to the said notice and it prima-facie
appeared that the Ex.P.1 Cheque has been issued by
the Complainant for discharge of legally payable
debt. There is no evidence from the Accused to show
that he is not residing in the address as mentioned in
the second address of the legal notice. Therefore, this
Court can easily say that the notice issued to the
Complainant has been duly served upon the Accused
and he purposefully not replied the said notice and
now he has taken different contention and not
proved the same by placing sufficient materials.
Therefore, what are the decisions which relied upon
by the Learned Counsel for the Complainant are not
at all attracted the facts and circumstances of this
case.
26 Crl.Appeal No.25060/2025
29. It is further pertinent to note here that
though the Accused denied about the receipt of legal
notice and also taken up contention that the
Complainant has purposefully send legal notice to
his old address knowing fully well that he was not
residing in the said address. However, as pointed
out by the Trial Court in its judgment despite making
such contention the Accused has not produced any
documentary evidence to show that at the relevant
point of time of issuing legal notice he was not
residing in the said address and the Complainant
has purposefully sent legal notice to the wrong
address etc. Further as discussed above, Ex.P.6
notice has been returned for the reason unclaimed
which infers that the Accused though gave intimation
regarding the said postal cover he did not claimed
the said notice. Further Ex.P.7 notice has been
returned as left which infers that the Accused
vacated the said address without intimation either to
the Accused or to the postal authority. Such being the
case the defense of the Accused that he could not
issued reply notice to the legal notice as it was sent
to his wrong address with an intention that the
27 Crl.Appeal No.25060/2025
Accused should not reply to the said notice cannot be
accepted.
30. Further it is pertinent to note here that the
Accused has taken up contention that he has not
issued Cheque in favour of the Complainant. In the
cross-examination the Learned Counsel for the
Accused made suggestion to the Complainant that
the Accused has not issued any Cheque and the
Complainant has misused the blank signed Cheque
and the same was categorically denied by the PW.1.
Admittedly, in another contention the Accused in his
evidence stated that his Cheque has been stolen by
the Complainant and forging his signature presented
the same. These two contentions are contrary to each
other. Once the Accused impliedly admitted that the
Cheque in question pertains to his account and not
produced any sufficient evidence in support of his
defense that his signature on the Cheque has been
misused or Cheque has been stolen etc., then it can
be presumed that the Accused has issued Cheque in
question in favour of the Complainant for repayment
of legally payable debt. No doubt, the Accused can
rebut the same by placing sufficient materials, but he
28 Crl.Appeal No.25060/2025
in the case on hand, the Accused has not rebutted
the case of the Complainant by placing sufficient
materials. What are the contentions taken in the
evidence and cross-examination of PW.1 was not at
all proved by him by placing sufficient cogent and
convincing evidence. Therefore, this Court is opinion
that the conclusion arrived by the Trial Court the
Cheque was issued by the Accused towards the
legally enforceable debt is proper and correct.
31. It is further pertinent to note here that
though the Accused contended that the Trial Court
has not properly appreciated the oral and
documentary evidence and also his evidence, as the
notice is also not at all served on him etc. However,
as observed by the Trial Court in its judgment, upon
considering the facts and circumstances of this case
and also keeping the principles of the decisions
which relied upon by both counsels, this Court is of
the opinion that heavy burden was casted upon the
Accused to rebut the presumption which available in
favour of the Complainant by placing sufficient
rebuttal evidence. However, in order to prove the
defense that the Cheque in question was stolen by
29 Crl.Appeal No.25060/2025
the Complainant and the notice was not at all served
upon him and the claim of the Complainant is time
barred debt etc., is concerned the Accused has failed
to place any rebuttal evidence. On the other hand, as
discussed above, the Complainant has proved his
case beyond all reasonable doubt and the conclusion
arrived by the Trial Court that the Accused has failed
to raise probable defense so as to doubt the very
existence of legally enforceable debt. On the other
hand, the Complainant has proved his case by
placing sufficient oral and documentary evidence.
Even the Trial Court also properly appreciated the
materials placed on record. Therefore, this Court can
infer the transaction between the parties and the
Cheque in question was issued by the Accused in
favour of the Complainant towards legally
enforceable debt. Therefore, there is no reason to
interfere with the judgment passed by the Trial
Court.
32. In so far as quantum of fine imposed by the
trial court is concerned, the Trial Court has imposed
total fine of Rs.39,00,000/- as against the Cheque
amount of Rs.28,00,000/-, keeping in view the year
of transaction, duration of litigation, cost of litigation
30 Crl.Appeal No.25060/2025
and interest on the outstanding amount etc. Since the
transaction between the parties was of the year
2017 and the above case was disposed of by the
Trial Court on 16.1.2025 and keeping in view of the
duration of litigation and cost of litigation etc., the
Trial Court has rightly awarded fine of
Rs.39,00,000/-. Hence, there is no reason to
interfere with the quantum of fine imposed by the
trial court.
33. Thus, looking from any angle, the Accused
failed to establish any probable defence even on the
materials produced by the Complainant. Having
regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the
Accused failed to substantiate his defence by
producing cogent evidence before this court. The
Trial Court by appreciating the evidence and
documents in a proper perspective and while
referring to the rulings of Hon’ble Apex Court has
rightly convicted the Accused for the offence
punishable U/Sec.138 of NI Act. In the absence of
any perversity or capriciousness while convicting the
Accused, there is no reason to interfere with the
Judgment of the trial court. Therefore no grounds
31 Crl.Appeal No.25060/2025
made out by the Accused to interfere with the
Judgment of conviction passed by the trial court.
Hence, Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the
Negative.
34. Point No.3:
In view of the findings on the above points the
appeal filed by the Appellant deserves to be
dismissed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the
following:-
ORDER
The appeal filed by the Appellant
U/Sec.415 of Cr.P.C., is hereby
dismissed with costs.
The Judgment of conviction passed
by the Learned XXXIII ACJM,
Bengaluru, in CC.No.53672/2021,
dtd.16.1.2025, is hereby confirmed.
Send back the records with a copy
of this Judgment to the Trial Court.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, corrected,
signed and then pronounced by me, in the open court on this
the 21st day of April 2026.)
Digitally signed by
NARAYANAPPA NARAYANAPPA SRIPAD
SRIPAD Date: 2026.04.23
16:13:11 +0530[Sri. Sreepada N]
LXXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru. (CCH-73).