Bangalore District Court
Rajamani Alias Rajeshwari vs Selvam C on 3 July, 2026
SCCH-6 1 CC No.350/2024
KABC020013902024
IN THE COURT OF ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY.
(SCCH-6)
Present: Smt. Chetana S.F.
B.A., L.L.B.,
IV Addl., Small Cause Judge & ACJM,
Court of Small Causes,
Bengaluru.
CC. No.350/2024
DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF JULY, 2026
COMPLAINANT/S Smt. Rajamani @ Rajeshwari,
Aged about 72 years,
W/o C.Devendran,
residing at No.44, 2nd Cross,
3rd Main, Prakashnagara,
Bengaluru-560021
(By Sri Sabarish Gandhi S. - Advocate)
-Vs-
ACCUSED Sri Selvam C,
Aged about 42 years,
S/o Chandrababu,
No.54, 31st Main,
Someshwaranagar,
BTM 2nd Stage,
Bengaluru-560068.
Also at;
No.11/16, 14th Cross,
SCCH-6 2 CC No.350/2024
4th Main, L.N.Puram,
Bengaluru-560021.
(By Sri. Shridhara K.- Advocate)
-: J U D G M E N T :-
This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/Sec.138
of the N.I. Act and Sec.200 R/w Sec.190 of Cr.P.C.1973 for
the offences punishable under Secs.138 of the N.I. Act as
against the accused praying to punish the accused for the
said offence.
2. The case of the complainant is that, accused and
his family members were known to complainant from many
years. Accused mother Smt.Saroja started a chit for
Rs.4,00,000/- at complainant's home in the year 2015 by
collecting monthly payments from many subscribers who
were residents of the same locality. The father of the accused
Shri. Chandrababu and his few relatives were also been
subscribers to the said chit. Accordingly, Complainant and
his mother conducted chit business for from many years
before, the complainant agreed to subscribe to the chit.
SCCH-6 3 CC No.350/2024
Accordingly, the complainant subscribed five chits of
Rs.4,00,000/- each in her name and she collectively paying
a sum of Rs.62,500/- per month towards the said five chits.
Out of the five chits subscribed the complainant drew three
chits and distributed to her friends their money and she
continued with remaining two chits. Complainant
approached accused mother Smt. Saroja and requested her
to return Rs.8,00,000/- for both chits but the said Saroja
and father Chandrababu and brother Naveen assured that
they will settle the money to her after three months as they
need some time to arrange the money. After three months
the complainant did not get her money then when she went
to the house of accused, his mother brother dialed to the
police control room and all were called to the Rajajinagar
Police and they recorded the statement of Smt. Saroja and
she assured that she will return due amount to complainant
by 25.01.2021. Accused and his brother met the complainant
and assured her that they will return Rs.8,00,000/- which is
due from Saroja and as a security towards the said two chits,
SCCH-6 4 CC No.350/2024
accused brother Elayaraja issued undated cheque for
Rs.50,000/-. At the same time accused also issued one
undated cheque for Rs.7,50,000/- bearing No.427159 drawn
on IDBI Bank, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Rajajinagar Branch in
favour of complainant with an assurance that they will
arrange and settle her money in full and take back the two
cheques. But accused and his brother did not settle the said
money. Once again complainant, his son and daughter went
to the accused house and demanded the money but Smt.
Saroja mother approached the Rajajinagar Police and lodged
false complaint against complainant. An NCR was registered
against the complainant and her family. After recording the
complainant's statement the matter was closed. Accused and
his brother against met the complainant and sought for six
months to return the said money, but they did not keep their
promise and accused relocated to a different place without
disclosing his whereabouts. On 17.07.2023 complainant and
his son confronted the accused and his father in the
premises of City Civil Court, Bengaluru when accused came
SCCH-6 5 CC No.350/2024
to attend his case and whenever the complainant saw Smt.
Saroja in the locality and demanded the money it elicited no
response.
3. Without any other option, on 02.08.2023 the
complainant presented the cheque bearing No.427159 drawn
on IDBI Bank, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Rajajinagar Branch for
Rs.7,50,000/- through her banker Cananra Bank,
Rajajinagar 2nd Block, Bengaluru but the same was returned
dishonored on 03.08.2023 with the remark " Payment
stopped by Drawer". Hence, the complainant issued legal
notice dated 01.09.2023 to the accused through RPAD and
the same was duly served on 12.09.2023. Inspite of service
of notice, the accused has not paid the cheque amount and
hence, he has committed an offence punishable u/s 138 of
NI Act. Hence, this complaint.
4. After recording the sworn statement of the
complainant by way of affidavit and also verifying the
documents, cognizance was taken against the accused for
the offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I. Act. The
SCCH-6 6 CC No.350/2024
accused appeared before this Court through his counsel and
enlarged on bail and his plea was recorded. The accused
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case
was posted for evidence of the complainant.
5. The complainant got examined herself as PW.1 and
got marked 12 documents as Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.12. During
cross examination of DW.1, learned counsel for complainant
got marked Ex.P13 and Ex.P14 through confrontation.
Thereafter, the case was posted for recording the statement
of accused under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. In the statement U/s.
313 Cr.P.C., the accused has denied all the incriminating
evidence appearing against him. On the other hand, the
accused examined himself as DW.1 and got marked two
documents as Ex.D1 and Ex.D2.
6. The learned counsel for accused has relied on the
following citations:
1.
(2021) 1 AIR KarR 600 between Bidar Urban
Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs. Girish
2. Crl. Appeal No.545/2010 between K.V. Subba
Reddy vs. N. Raghava Reddy
SCCH-6 7 CC No.350/2024
3. Crl. Appeal No.1020 of 2010 between
Rangappa vs. Sri Mohan
4. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 979 between Jain P. Jose
vs. Santosh & Anr.
7. Heard the arguments of both side and Perused the
records.
8. The following points arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the complainant proves that the
cheque for Rs.7,50,000/- bearing
No.427159 dated 01.08.2023 drawn on
IDBI Bank, Dr. Rajkumar Road,
Rajajinagar Branch, Bengaluru, issued by
the accused has been dishonored ” Payment
stopped by Drawer” on 03.08.2023 and even
after receiving the intimation regarding the
dishonor of cheque failed to pay the cheque
amount within the stipulated period and
thereby the accused has committed an
offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I. Act?
2. What order?
9. My findings on the above points are as under
Point No.1: In the Affirmative
Point No.2: As per final order for the
following:
SCCH-6 8 CC No.350/2024
-: R E A S O N S :-
10. POINT NO.1:- In view of the present legal position
as held by our Hon’ble High Court as well as Apex Court of
India in a catena of decisions as well as relevant
provisions of the Act, this court has to see whether the
complainant has complied all the requirements as
contained in Sec.138 of NI Act so as to bring home the
guilt of the accused for the alleged offence. If so,
whether the accused is able to rebut the legal
presumption available to the complainant under Sec.139
of the Act by adducing probable defense or not. However,
it is held by the full bench of our Apex Court in the case
of Rangappa Vs. Mohan reported in 2010 (1) DCR 706
that;
“The Statutory presumption mandated by
sec.139 of the Act, does indeed include
the existence of a legally enforceable debt
or liability. However, the presumption U/S
139 of the Act is in the nature of a rebut-
table presumption and it is open for the
accused to raise a defence wherein the ex-
SCCH-6 9 CC No.350/2024
istence of a legally enforceable debt or lia-
bility can be contested”.
11. Therefore, in view of the above decision, once the
cheque is admitted, the statutory presumption would
automatically fall in favour of the complainant the
complainant that, the alleged cheque was issued for
discharge of an existing legally enforceable debt or liability
against the accused and the burden will shift on to the
accused to rebut the same.
INGREDIENTS OF OFFENCE AND DISCUSSION:-
12. Before dwelling into the facts of the present case, it
would be apposite to discuss the legal standards required to
be met by both sides. In order to establish the offence under
Section 138 of NI Act, the prosecution must fulfill all the
essential ingredients of the offence. Perusal of the bare
provision reveals the following necessary ingredients of the
offence:-
First Ingredient: The cheques were
drawn by a person on an account
maintained by him for payment of
SCCH-6 10 CC No.350/2024money and the same is presented
for payment within a period of 3
months from the date on which it is
drawn or within the period of its
validity;
Second Ingredient: The cheques
were drawn by the drawer for
discharge of any legally enforceable
debt or other liability;
Third Ingredient: The cheques were
returned unpaid by the bank due to
either insufficiency of funds in the
account to honour the cheque or
that it exceeds the amount arranged
to be paid from that account on an
agreement made with that bank;
Fourth Ingredient: A demand of the
said amount has been made by the
payee or holder in due course of the
cheque by a notice in writing given
to the drawer within thirty days of
the receipt of information of the
dishonour of cheque from the bank;
Fifth Ingredient: The drawer fails to
make payment of the said amount of
money within fifteen days from the
date of receipt of notice.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE-
13. The accused can only be held guilty of the offence
under Section 138 NI Act if the above-mentioned ingredients
SCCH-6 11 CC No.350/2024
are proved by the complainant co-extensively. Additionally,
the conditions stipulated under Section 142 NI Act have to be
fulfilled. Notably, there is no dispute at bar about the proof of
only first, third, and fifth ingredient. The complainant had
proved the original cheque vide Ex.P.1 which the accused
person had not disputed as being drawn on the account of
the accused. It was not disputed that the cheque in question
was presented within its validity period. The cheque in
question was returned unpaid vide return memo vide Ex.P.2
due to the reason, ” Payment stopped by Drawer” dated
03.08.2023. The complainant had proved the service of legal
demand notice dated 01.09.2023 vide Ex.P.3. Postal receipts
vide Ex.P4 and 5. Track consignment vide Ex.P6. Certificate
under Sec.65-B of Indian Evidence Act vide Ex.P7. Returned
Postal cover and the notice inside the postal cover vide Ex.P8
and Ex.P8(a). complaint dated 15.03.2021 given to the police
vide Ex.P9. Police acknowledgment vide Ex.P10. complaint
dated 25.01.2023 given to the police vide Ex.P11. Statement
of Saroja vide Ex.P12. Order sheet and evidence in CC
SCCH-6 12 CC No.350/2024
No.1251/2023 vide Ex.P13. Bank returned memo in CC
No.1251/2023 vide Ex.P14. Thus, there is a dispute only
with regard to the second ingredient to the offence. As such,
the 1st,3rd,4th& 5th ingredient of the offence under section
138 of the NI Act stands proved.
14. As far as the proof of second ingredient is
concerned, the complainant has to prove that the cheque in
question was drawn by the drawer for discharging a legally
enforceable debtor any liability. In the present case, the
issuance of the cheque in question is not denied. As per the
scheme of the NI Act, once the accused admits signature on
the cheque in question, certain presumption are drawn,
which result in shifting of onus. Section 118(a) of the NI Act
lays down the presumption that every negotiable instrument
was made or drawn for consideration. Another presumption
is enumerated in Section 139 of NI Act. The provision lays
down the presumption that the holder of the cheque received
it for the discharge, in whole or part, of any debt or other
liability.
SCCH-6 13 CC No.350/2024
15. The combined effect of these two provisions is a
presumption that the cheque is drawn for consideration and
given by the accused for the discharge of debt or other
liability. Both the sections use the expression “shall”, which
makes it imperative for the court to raise the presumptions
once the foundational facts required for the same are proved.
Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, Hiten P. Dalal vs. Bratindranath Banerjee (2001) 6
SCC 16.
16. Further, it has been held by a three-judge bench of
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rangappa vs. Sri
Mohan (2010) 11 SCC 441 that the presumption
contemplated under Section 139 of NI Act includes the
presumption of existence of a legally enforceable debt. Once
the presumption is raised, it is for the accused to rebut the
same by establishing a probable defence.
17. The presumptions raised under Section 118(b) and
Section 139 NI Act are rebuttable presumptions. A reverse
onus is cast on the accused, who has to establish a probable
SCCH-6 14 CC No.350/2024
defence on the standard of preponderance of probabilities to
prove that either there was no legally enforceable debt or
other liability. In this case, the arguments raised by the Ld.
counsel for the accused to rebut the presumption are
discussed below:
First defence: Notice not served
18. The accused has taken the contention that notice
has not been served to him and as such no cause of action
arose to file the complaint against him. But, in this regard,
learned counsel for complainant cross examined DW.1
wherein DW.1 admitted that, he was running CNC Factory in
the second address mentioned in the cause title of the
complaint. But, it was closed in the year 2019. Further DW.1
was confronted with Order sheet and deposition in CC
N.1251/2021, it was admitted by the accused and was
marked as Ex.P13 wherein accused in his affidavit evidence
mentioned the address of his CNC Factory i.e., 2 nd address in
the cause title of the present case in the year 2023. Further
DW.1 was confronted with Bank return memo dated
SCCH-6 15 CC No.350/2024
31.01.2019, it was admitted by the accused and was marked
as Ex.P14 wherein address mentioned as Someshwaranagar,
BTM 2nd Stage. Further DW.1 clearly admitted 1 st address
mentioned in the cause title of the present case is same
address mentioned in Ex.P14. Thus accused has clearly
admitted both the address mentioned in the cause title as his
address. It is pertinent to note here that accused has not
denied the address to which the notice has been sent. When
accused has not denied the address to which the notice has
been sent as per Sec.114(f) of Indian Evidence Act, all official
acts are duly performed, accordingly it may be presumed that
when the notice duly stamped correct addressed to be
presumed that it has been duly served to the address until
and unless the contrary is proved. Even the complainant has
produced track consignment which clearly shows that the
notice has been duly delivered. Even the summons to the
accused has been sent to the same address has been duly
served to the accused. Hence for the sake of the defence, the
notice has been duly served.
SCCH-6 16 CC No.350/2024
19. In this regard this court relying upon the decision in
the case between Alavi Haji V/s. Palapetty Mohammed and
another, wherein the Hon’ble court held that Unless and until
the contrary is proved by the addressee, service of notice is
deemed to have been effected at the time at which the letter
would have been delivered in the ordinary registered post and
is returned with a postal endorsement ‘refused’ or not available
in the house or house locked or shop closed or addressee not in
station. Due service has to be presumed.
20. Moreover, in this regard, it has been held by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/S Indo
Automobiles Vs. M/S. Jaidurga Enterprises reported in
2008 (2) DCR 499 and also as provided under Sec.27 of
the Mysore general clauses Act, 1897. When a notice is sent
to the correct address of the addressee, even if the same is
returned unserved due absence or non-claiming or refusal of
the addressee, the same amounts to deemed service.
Moreover, the very purpose of giving statutory notice to
provide an opportunity to the accused/drawer to make
payment of the cheque amount and escape from the
criminal prosecution. The non-service of the notice would be
ground only in the case of the accused admitting the
SCCH-6 17 CC No.350/2024
liability under the cheque and pleading only exemption from
the criminal prosecution for non payment of the cheque
amount. Thus this defence of the accused is of no
consequence in the present case as he is totally denying the
liability under the said cheque.
21. In the present case the notice has been sent to the
correct address of the accused as admitted by the accused
himself and even postal cover with the endorsement is
produced to show that the notice has been duly intimated to
him and served on him. As such the statutory demand
notice is held to have been duly served on the accused.
Hence defence taken by the accused that notice not served
him does not holds good. Thus it appears that accused only
for the sake of the defence has taken the above said defence.
Thus notice has been duly served to the accused.
Second defence: Financial capacity
22. The learned counsel for accused cross examined
PW.1 with regard to her occupation and income wherein
PW.1 deposed that she was selling sarees of the temple and
she used to purchase the sarees from the temple on tender
SCCH-6 18 CC No.350/2024
basis and thereafter she used to sell the same to the public.
Except that accused counsel has not at all questioned about
any income or the financial capacity of the PW.1. Further it
was argued by the accused counsel that there was no
financial transaction and chiti transaction between
complainant and accused at any point of time. Even PW.1
admitted this fact and hence accused is not liable to pay any
cheque amount.
23. In this regard, learned counsel for accused cross
examined PW.1 at length wherein PW.1 clearly stated that
the mother of the accused was doing the chit business and
her sisters Jamuna, Radha and her daughter Latha, Girija
and she has subscribed for the chit and paying the chit
amount regularly. Further learned counsel for accused cross
examined PW.1 with regard to the details of the chit business
wherein PW.1 stated that she did not remember how many
months she paid the amount, but, PW.1 stated that she has
paid entire chit amount till the end of the chit period for the
PW.1 stated that she used to pay Rs.62,500/- every month
SCCH-6 19 CC No.350/2024
totally she has paid Rs.20,00,000/-. Further PW.1 stated
that she do not remember the month and year when the chit
was commenced and when the chit was closed.
24. Even when it was questioned that whether any
document to show that there is a chit transaction between
complainant and accused’s mother, PW.1 stated that she has
no document, but, in respect of that the mother of the
accused Sarojamma has given statement before the police
station with regard to chit transaction with her. Further it
was specifically questioned whether the chit business was
started in the year 2015 and end in the year 2018, PW.1
stated that she do not remember the same. It is pertinent to
note here that nowhere accused counsel or the accused
denied the chit transaction between his mother and the
complainant. Even nowhere accused denied that
complainant used to pay the chit amount of Rs.62,500/-
every month and complainant has paid Rs.20,00,000/-
towards chit to his mother Sarojamma at least by putting a
single denial suggestion.
SCCH-6 20 CC No.350/2024
25. Further accused himself by putting the suggestion
that in the year 2021 there was a dispute and difference of
opinion between accused and his mother and the
complainant in the year 2021 which was admitted by the
PW.1. Further accused counsel suggested that on
25.01.2021 the father of the accused has lodged complaint
against son of the complainant before Rajajinagar police
station for which, PW.1 stated that when she and her son
went to the accused house to ask for return of the chit
amount, accused father has lodged false complaint against
her and her son. Even accused counsel himself suggested
that as per Ex.P9, on 15.03.2021 the mother of the accused
has lodged the complaint against the complainant and her
son and her daughter for which, Pw.1 stated that when they
went to ask for the chit amount, accused mother has filed
the false complaint against them.
26. Further when it was specifically questioned why the
complainant has not lodged any complaint against accused
mother PW.1 stated that as her daughter was unmarried and
SCCH-6 21 CC No.350/2024
hence she did not choose to lodge the police complaint and
this fact is not at all denied by the accused counsel.
27. Further PW.1 in her cross-examination at para No.10
clearly stated that in the police station after enquiry, accused
acknowledged and agreed to pay the amount liable by his
mother to the complainant towards chit amount and has
issued the cheque in question to the complainant. Even PW.1
stated that accused and his brother have issued the cheque
to the complainant by saying that the complainant should
not ask the chit amount from her mother. It is pertinent to
note here that this fact deposed by the PW.1 in her cross-
examination has not at all been denied by the accused
counsel.
28. The accused only further went posing the question
that whether PW.1 remember the date when cheque was
given for which, PW.1 stated that when there was quarrel
between complainant and accused mother with regard to the
chit amount, at that time accused has issued the cheque.
But he did not remember the specific date. Even this fact has
SCCH-6 22 CC No.350/2024
not been denied by the accused. Thus accused has not
denied liability of his mother to pay the cheque amount to
the complainant. Even accused has not at all denied
issuance of the cheque on behalf of his mother towards her
liability to the complainant specifically. Thus complainant
has established the existence of the liability and issuance of
the cheque and the signature in the cheque.
29. Though accused has taken the specific defence with
regard to passing of the cheque into the hands of the
complainant that complainant used to come to the house of
the accused regularly at that time, complainant has taken
the cheque of the accused without notice of the accused and
filled up the cheque and presented the cheque to the bank
and hence acused is not liable to pay any amount to the
complainant and has filed this false complaint. Even in the
defence evidence, accused has taken the defence that he
used to give the cheque in his house for house expenditure
and at that time, complainant used to come to their house
has taken the cheque and filed this false case. But, in the
SCCH-6 23 CC No.350/2024
cross-examination of DW.1 at para No.7when specifically
questioned whether he has given the complaint about theft of
his cheque, Dw.1 stated that he did not know whether
complainant has stolen his cheque or not, but, the said
cheque has been misplaced. Thus accused himself is not
sure whether his cheque was stolen by complainant or not
from his house or not. Thus when accused himself is not
sure about the cheque stolen by complainant, then the
defence taken by the accused that complainant has taken his
cheque whenever complainant used to come to their house
cannot be accepted and believed.
30. Apart from this, ordinarily no prudent man would
keep the signed blank cheque so easily assessable to 3 rd
party who were vising their house. Even accused has not
lodged complaint about the theft of his cheque. When
accused counsel is not sure about how the cheque in
question has gone into the hands of PW-1, even Accused has
not setup clear specific defence as to how the cheque in
question has gone into the hands of the PW-1. Under such
SCCH-6 24 CC No.350/2024
circumstances the version of the complainant that in the year
2021 when the complaint was lodged by the parents of
accused against the complainant and there was an enquiry
at that time accused has issued the cheque in question and
settled the matter is clearly established.
31. In support of his contention accused has produced
Ex.D-1 the letter, on perusal of which the accused has given
requisition to manager of IDBI Bank on 06-04-2026 to
provide information about the exact date on which the “Stop
payment” instruction was registered and processed in respect
of Ex.P-1 cheque. Wherein the endorsement return as
“Customer has reported to Branch as cheque No.427159 got
lost on 02-07-2019”. Even it bears seal and signature of
bank, but complainant has entirely denied Ex.D-1 and
contended that, Ex.D-1 is created document. Admittedly in
the ordinary course of proceedings of the bank now a days all
the banks will issue typed and computer generated reply to
any requisition, but endorsement written on Ex.D-1 alleged
to be written by the bank manager without any supporting
SCCH-6 25 CC No.350/2024
documents appears to be very doubtful.
32. Even the accused has not examined the bank official
who has written the endorsement on Ex.D-1. Hence, Ex.D-1
and the defence of the accused that, he has given the Stop
payment notice in the year 2019 to Ex.P-1 cheque cannot be
accepted and believed.
33. Further, accused has produced Ex.D-2 lost article
report issued by the Bengaluru City Police, dated: 24-11-
2020 which has been downloaded by the official website of
Bengaluru City police as per which the accused has issued
the lost article report in respect of cheque No.427159 I.e.,
Ex.P-1 on 24-11-2020 and has produced 65-B Certificate in
support of the same. But, mere registering of lost article
report itself does not prove that accused has not at all issued
the cheque in question to the PW.1 in discharge of the
liability of his mother.
34. On the other hand, complainant has produced Ex.P9
the complaint lodged by the Saroja Chandrababu mother of
SCCH-6 26 CC No.350/2024
the accused on 15.03.2021 and the acknowledgment given
by the police as per Ex.P10. As per Ex.P9, mother of the
accused has clearly admitted that she was doing the chit
business. Even admitted that since 4-5 years complainant
was doing the chit business with her and further as per
Ex.P9, the said Saroja stated that PW.1 was also doing chit
and she is liable to pay Rs.50,000/- and in that respect the
complainant has quarreled with them. Hence she has filed
the above said complaint.
35. Further complainant has produced Ex.P11 complaint
lodged by the father of the accused by name Chandrababu
on 25.01.2021 wherein stated that the police have taken the
statement from his wife Saroja that Saroja is liable to pay
Rs.8,00,000/- to the complainant.
36. Further complainant has produced Ex.P12 statement
given by the said Saroja before the police stating on
21.01.2021 wherein the said Saroja has clearly stated that
she was doing chit and complainant was a subscriber of the
chit and paying the chit amount and she was liable to pay
SCCH-6 27 CC No.350/2024
Rs.8,00,000/- to the complainant. Further admitted that she
and her husband and her son will pay the said Rs.8,00,000/-
chit amount to the PW.1 and in case of default, complainant
is entitled to take the legal action against her. Thus from
Ex.P12, it is clear that the mother of the accused has clearly
admitted her liability to pay Rs.8,00,000/- to the
complainant and she has given the statement before the
police. This fact corroborates the case of the complainant.
37. It is pertinent to note here that nowhere the accused
denied the transaction between his mother and the
complainant and specifically denied the statement Ex.P12
given by his mother before the police station admitting her
liability to pay Rs.8,00,000/- to the complainant at least by
putting a single denial suggestion. Even accused has not
examined his mother and disprove the same. Thus in view of
the above said reasons, complainant has clearly established
the existence of the liability of the mother of the accused for
Rs.8,00,000/- to her and further issuance of the cheque by
the accused on behalf of his mother. Hence the defence taken
SCCH-6 28 CC No.350/2024
by the accused is more improbable.
Conclusion:
38. In view of all the above discussions, it can be
concluded that the complainant has established through
cogent and convincing evidence the fact of issuance of the
cheque for discharge of legality enforceable debt, which is
dishonored for want of sufficient funds, Issuance of legal notice
within stipulated time, failure on the part of accused to repay
the amount within stipulated period. On the other hand, the
accused has failed to rebut the presumption available to the
complainant through probable evidences that would
preponderate upon the evidence lead by the complainant.
Therefore, the accused is held to have committed an offence
punishable under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act. Accordingly, Point No.1
is answered in the Affirmative.
39. POINT No.2:- In view of my answer to point No.1, I
proceed to pass the following:-
SCCH-6 29 CC No.350/2024
-: O R D E R :-
Acting U/Sec.278(2) of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, accused is
hereby convicted for the offence punishable
U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Accused is sentenced to pay a fine of
Rs.7,55,000/- for the offence punishable
under section 138 of N.I.Act. The amount of
Rs.7,50,000/- shall be paid to the
complainant by way of compensation in
accordance with Sec.395(1) of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, within one
month from today.
The remaining amount of Rs.5,000/-
shall be confiscated to the state. In default
of payment of fine, the accused shall
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
six months.
It is made clear that in view of Sec.461 of
BNSS, even if the accused shall undergo the
default sentence imposed above, accused is
not absolved of liability to pay the fine
amount.
SCCH-6 30 CC No.350/2024
The bail and surety bond of the accused
and surety shall stand canceled.
Office to furnish the copy of this judgment
for free of cost to the accused.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by her. After her
typing, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court this the
3rd day of July 2026).
(CHETANA S.F.)
IV Addl., Small Cause Judge & ACJM,
Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
List of witnesses examined for the Complainant:
PW.1 :- Smt. Rajamani @ Rajeshwari
List of witnesses examined for the accused:-
DW.1 :- Sri. Selvam
List of documents marked for the Complainant:-
Ex.P.1 : Cheque
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of accused
Ex.P.2 : Bank Endorsement
Ex.P.3 : Office copy of Legal Notice dated
01.09.2023
Ex.P.4 & 5 : Postal Receipts
SCCH-6 31 CC No.350/2024
Ex.P.6 & 7 : Postal track consignment
Ex.P.8 & : Returned postal cover and notice inside the
8(a) postal cover
Ex.P.9 : Complaint dated 15.03.2021 given to the
police
Ex.P.10 : Police acknowledgment
Ex.P.11 : Complaint dated 25.01.2023 given to the
police
Ex.P.12 : Statement of Saroja
Ex.P.13 : Order sheet and evidence in CC
No.1251/2023
Ex.P.14 : Bank returned memo in CC No.1251/2023
List of documents marked for the accused:-
Ex.D.1 : A letter given to IDBI Bank with regard to
Stop payment notice
Ex.D.2 : Lost Article Report
(CHETANA S.F.)
IV Addl., Small Cause Judge &
ACJM, Court of Small Causes,
BENGALURU.
