Bangalore District Court
S Suresha vs B.R.Satish on 22 May, 2026
KABC030433392014
IN THE COURT OF LI ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Present: Sri. KRISHNA. J, B.A., LL.B.,
LI Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2026
C.C. No.16630/2014
COMPLAINANT: S. SURESHA,
S/o Late H. Siddappa,
R/at # 182, 33rd Cross,
II Main, II Block, Jaganahalli,
Rajajinagara,
Bengaluru-560010.
(Reptd. By:Sri.M.D.Paramesha, Advocate)
V/s.
ACCUSED: B.R. SATISH,
S/o B.M. Rajanna,
Aged about 36 years,
R/at # 1860, 42nd Cross,
15th Main, III Block, Rajajinagaa,
Bengaluru-560010.
OFFICE:
2
C.C.No.16630/2014
B.R. SATISH, Proprietor,
M/s Ashok Traders,
# 30, II Main Road,
APMC Yard, Yeshwanthapura,
Bengaluru-560022.
(Reptd. By: Sri.Omkar Basava Prabhu., Advocate)
:JUDGMENT:
The complainant has filed the complaint alleging an
offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act against
accused herein.
2. The brief case of the complainant is as hereunder:-
The complainant and accused are close friends, from
several years. The accused approached the complainant on
10.10.2009, 24.10.2009 and 01.07.2011 for financial
assistance, borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- on 10.10.2009
through a cheque, Rs.19,4,400/- through a cheque and
Rs.5,600/- by cash on 24.10.2009 and Rs.2,00,000/- on
01.07.2011, in total Rs.6,00,000/- and promised to repay
the same in short period, when complainant demanded for
repayment, the accused issued two post dated cheque one
3
C.C.No.16630/2014is bearing No.099446 dated 08.05.2013 for Rs.2,00,000/-
drawn on Tumkur Grain Merchants Co-op Bank Limited,
Dr.Rajkumar Road, II Main, E.S.I. Road, 4th Block,
Rajajinagar, Bengaluru and another for Rs.4,00,000/-
dated 10.06.2013 in favour of the complainant. On
presentation of above said cheque bearing No.099446 for
encashment by the complainant through his banker
returned unpaid with a shara INSUFFICIENT FUNDS on
10.05.2013 then complaint issued a notice calling the
accused to pay the cheque amount on 07.06.2013 despite
service of notice accused fails to pay the cheque amount.
Hence the complaint.
3. The complainant filed the complaint on
20.02.2013 before 13th ACMM, Bengaluru, Later
transferred to 19th ACMM Bengaluru vide notification
bearing No.ADM I/I/14 of CMM Bengaluru. The sworn
statement of the complainant recorded on 27.06.2014. On
perusal of sworn statement and documents. The 19th
A.C.M.M., Bengaluru ordered to register a criminal case
4
C.C.No.16630/2014
and issued summons to accused. In pursuance of
summons the accused appeared on 08.04.2015, obtained
bail, plea of accused recorded on 15.03.2016, he pleads
not guilty claims to have defence, then matter posted for
complainant evidence. The complainant fails to lead his
evidence, in the result the case dismissed for default on
15.06.2016. The complainant filed criminal appeal before
high court of Karnataka in Crl.Apl. No. 1907/2016, the
Hon’ble high court of Karnataka allowed the appeal on
09.12.2022 by setting aside the order of dismissal dated
15.06.2016 and restored the matter in it’s original number.
Accordingly matter restored on 18.01.2023, again accused
appeared and obtained bail on 18.10.2023, matter posted
for complainant evidence.
4. The complainant examined as P.W.1 produced
7 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7, closed his side. Later
case transferred to this court vide notification bearing
No.ADM/1/12/2025 Of CJM Bengaluru. Before this court
the statement of accused under sec.313 Cr.P.C., recorded
5
C.C.No.16630/2014
on 28.01.2026 and matter posted for defence evidence. The
accused examined as D.W.1 produced 15 documents as
Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.15, during the cross examination of D.W.1
the complainant confronted two documents to D.W.1 and
they marked as Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.9. Subsequently the
complainant/P.W.1 got recalled himself, examined further
produced 3 documents they marked as Ex.P.8 to Ex.P.10
(in fact they ought to have marked as Ex.P.10 to 12 by
mistake they marked as Ex.P.8 to Ex.P.10)
5. Heard the arguments of both side and perused
the records. On perusal of records and upon hearing of the
arguments, the court has raised the fallowing points for
consideration as follows:
POINTS
1) Whether the complainant proves beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused
approached the complainant on
10.10.2009, 24.10.2009 and 01.07.2011
for financial assistance, borrowed
Rs.2,00,000/- on 10.10.2009 through a
cheque, Rs.19,4,400/- through a cheque
and Rs.5,600/- by cash on 24.10.2009
and Rs.2,00,000/- on 01.07.2011, in total
6
C.C.No.16630/2014Rs.6,00,000/- and promised to repay the
same in short period, when complainant
demanded for repayment, the accused
issued two post dated cheque one is
bearing No.099446 dated 08.05.2013 for
Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on Tumakur Grain
Merchants Co-op Bank Limited,
Dr.Rajkumar Road, II Main, ESI Road, 4th
Block, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru and another
for Rs.4,00,000/- dated 10.06.2013 in
favour of the complainant. On presentation
of above said cheque bearing No.099446
for encashment by the complainant
through his banker returned unpaid with a
shara INSUFFICIENT FUNDS on
10.05.2013 then complaint issued a notice
calling the accused to pay the cheque
amount on 07.06.2013 despite service of
notice accused fails to pay the cheque
amount thereby committing the offence
punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act.?
2) What Order.?
6. My findings on the above points are:
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative
Point No.2 : As per final order,
for the following:
REASONS
7. Point No.1: The complainant, to prove his case,
examined himself as PW1, the affidavit filed in lieu of
examination in chief, wherein he reiterated the complaint
7
C.C.No.16630/2014
averments stated supra and produced 12 documents as
Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12.
8. The Ex.P.1 cheque bearing No.099446 dated
08.05.2013 drawn on Tumkur Grain Merchants CO-OP
Bank Ltd., Rajajinagar branch, Bengaluru for ₹2,00,000/-
in the name of complainant. The signature find on the
cheque is marked as Ex.P1(a) on the assertion of PW1 that
the signature is of accused. The Ex.P.2 cheque return
memo dated 10.05.2013 issued by Tumkur Grain
Merchants CO-OP Bank Ltd., Rajajinagar branch,
Bengaluru discloses the cheque Ex.P.1 on presentation for
encashment returned unpaid for the reason ‘funds
insufficient’ in drawer’s account.
9. The Ex.P.3 office copy of the notice dated
07.06.2013 discloses the complainant on receipt of
dishonour of cheque Ex.P.1, within thirty days, issued a
notice calling the accused to pay the cheque amount in
compliance of Sec.138 proviso (b) of NI Act., The Ex.P.4
8
C.C.No.16630/2014
and Ex.P.5 postal receipts having issued the notice by
registered post acknowledgment due. The Ex.P.6 and
Ex.P.7 unserved postal covers discloses the notice Ex.P.3
sent under Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5 to the residence address and
shop address of the accused returned as addressee left.
10. The Ex.P.8 portion of deposition of accused
given in C.C.No.12360/2013 and it is marked after
confronting to the accused/D.W.1 during the cross
examination, which discloses the accused in the said
proceedings admitted the complainant herein was his
neighbor, he know the complainant from his younger age,
also had financial transaction with complainant and
borrowed Rs.2,00,000/-.
11. The Ex.P.9 certified copy of a Letter find on a
Letter head of Ashoka Traders, discloses the accused
acknowledging the receipt of Rs.6,00,000/- from
complainant, issued two cheque for repayment including
the Ex.P.1. It is relevant to note the accused disputed the
9
C.C.No.16630/2014
very letter and signature alleged to be of the accused on
the letter, as it that be.
12. The Ex.P.8 (in fact ought to be Ex.P.10)
statement of account of complainant held at Federal Bank
for the period from 15.06.2011 to 30.07.2011, discloses on
01.07.2011 he received Rs.1,95,000/- and on the same day
he withdrawn the same.
13. The Ex.P.9 (in fact ought to be Ex.P.11)
statement of account complainant held at Federal Bank for
the period from 01.12.2009 to 31.12.2009, discloses on
24.12.2009 complainant paid Rs.1,94,400/- to B.R.Satish
i.e accused, through a cheque.
14. The Ex.P.10 (in fact ought to be Ex.P.12)
statement of account of complainant held at Karur Vysya
Bank for the period from 15.09.2009 to 20.10.2009,
discloses on 10.10.2009 complainant paid Rs.2,00,000/-
to B.R.Satish i.e accused, through a cheque.
10
C.C.No.16630/2014
15. The P.W.1 in his cross-examination deposed he
is a B.Sc., graduate, doing auto consultancy, real estate
and onion trade. He knows the accused from his younger
age, the accused is doing onion trade in the name of Akash
traders. He mobilized ₹ 1,95,000/- after pledging gold
ornaments and he can produce documents to that effect.
The cheque issued 3-4 months early to the date of cheque.
16. The accused/D.W.1 in his examination-in-chief,
deposed he is doing onion and potato trade at APMC,
Yashwanthapura, from 2007. He used to visit Belagavi,
Maharastra, Bijapura. Chikkamagaluru to purchase onion
and potato. While he was visiting so, he used to hand over
the charge of his shop to one Prasad. In the year 2009, the
said Prasad introduced the complainant to him, thereafter,
the complainant used to visit his shop to purchase onion
and potato. In year 2009, a cheque of ₹1,94,400/- was
issued by the complainant in his favour towards purchase
of onion and same is encashed by him. Regularly 1% of the
trade amount has to be paid to the APMC on every
11
C.C.No.16630/2014
Wednesday. Therefore, while he was going out to purchase
onion and potato, he used to keep blank signed cheque
with writer and Prasad to make the payment to APMC
through the signed blank cheque. In the year 2009-10,
Prasad and his wife availed hand loan from him and issued
cheque for repayment. He filed a complaint against wife of
Prasad on the basis of cheque, wherein the court ordered
to pay ₹ 13,00,000/- to him. Thereafter Prasad is not in
talking terms with him. In the year 2012, he took one
Mumtaz as partner to his trade. Since Mumtaz was not
properly managing the trade, he left Mumtaz and took one
Gomathi as a partner to the trade, now Gomathi is looking
after the trade and he is not visiting the shop. From 2013
he is doing cable business. The said Prasad has taken the
signed blank cheques kept in the shop and given to the
complainant, got filed the case through the complainant.
17. In support of his case accused produced in all
15 documents, as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.15. The Ex.D.1 certified
copy of license certificate issued by APMC Yashwanthpura
12
C.C.No.16630/2014
Bengaluru dated 09.08.2007, Ex.D.2 certified copy of
Value Added tax registration certificate dated 03.08.2007,
Ex.D.3 certified copy of permission issued by APMC
Yashwanthpura, Bengaluru dated 26.06.2012, Ex.D.4
certified copy of general body meeting held on 29.02.2012
at APMC Yashwanthpura, Bengaluru, Ex.D.5 certified copy
of permission issued by APMC Yashwanthpura Bengaluru
dated 13.06.2013 and Ex.D.6 information provided to
Prasad by APMC Yashwanthpura, Bengaluru on
13.01.2016 under Right to Information Act., The Ex.D.1 to
Ex.D.6 discloses the accused is doing a trade in the name
of Ashoka Traders at APMC Yashwanthpura from 2007,
initially alone, from 2012 under partnership.
18. The Ex.D.7 to Ex.D.13 are certified copies of
documents relating to cable business, they discloses the
accused is doing cable business from 2013.
19. The Ex.D.14 certified copy of Adhaar Card and
Ex.D.15 certified copy of ID card issued by Election
13
C.C.No.16630/2014
Commission of India, of accused, they discloses the
accused is residing at No.132, 2nd main road, 2nd Block,
Jugganahalli, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru.
20. The accused in his cross examination deposed
the Ashoka Traders is still running. He admits in
CC.12360/2013 he deposed Suresh (complainant herein) is
his neighbor and he knew suresh from his birth. The
advocate for complainant suggested to D.W.1 that in
CC.12360/2013 he has admitted to have received
Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant, it is denied by the
accused. Immediately the advocate for complainant shown
a particular part of the deposition of accused given in
CC.12360/2013 which reads as hereunder “ನನಗೆ ಸುರೇಶ
ಎನ್ನುವರು ಪರಿಚಯವಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಸುರೇಶ್ ಇವರು ಅಕ್ಕ ಪಕ್ಕದ ಮನೆಯವರಾಗಿದ್ದು
ಚಿಕ್ಕವನಾಗಿದ್ದಾಗಿನಿಂದಲೂ ಪರಿಚಯವಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಅವರ ಮತ್ತು ನನ್ನ ನಡುವೆ
ಹಣಕಾಸಿನ ವ್ಯವಹಾರ ಈಗಲೂ ಸಹ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ. 2009 ರಿಂದ 2011 ರ ವರೆಗೆ ಸುರೆಶ್
ಇವರಿಂದ ರೂ.6 ಲಕ್ಷ ಹಣವನ್ನು ಪಡೆದಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ, ಆದರೆ ರೂ.2 ಲಕ್ಷ ಹಣವನ್ನು
ಪಡೆದುಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದೆ.” the accused admitted the above extracted
statement without any explanation, in the result it is
marked as Ex.P.8.
14
C.C.No.16630/2014
21. The advocate for complainant has confronted a
certified copy of letter find on a letter head of Ashok
Traders dated 08.02.2013 stating the said document is
produced by the complainant in CC.5833/15 and accused
admitted that the said document is produced by the
complainant in CC.5833/15, therefore, it is marked as
Ex.P.9. The letter discloses the accused to repay the loan
amount of Rs.6,00,000/- issued two cheques including the
Ex.P.1, herein, in favour of the complainant. The accused
admitted he has challenged the Ex.P.9 in CC.5833/15 on
the ground signature find on Ex.P.9 is not of his own, the
handwriting expert has given a opinion that the signature
is of the accused. The accused contended and deposed the
hand writing expert not turned up for examination.
22. The accused admitted the cheque Ex.P.1 drawn
from the account maintained by him and disputed the
signature.
15
C.C.No.16630/2014
23. The complainant argued the cheque Ex.P.1
drawn from the account maintained by accused, is
admitted by the accused. The accused has not disputed the
signature find on the cheque Ex.P.1 during the cross-
examination of PW1 or in his examination-in-chief. Only
when it is asked by the advocate for complainant during
the cross-examination, he has denied the signature, it as
an afterthought. The Ex.P.2 discloses the cheque
dishonoured for the reason ‘funds insufficient’ not for the
reason signature differs. Therefore, the court can presume
the signature find on the cheque is of accused. Once it is
established the cheque drawn from the account maintained
by the accused and signature find on the cheque is of the
accused, the cheque issued in favour of the complainant, it
is a matter of presumption that the cheque is issued for
legally recoverable debt or discharge of liability. Admission
find in Ex.P.8, i.e., previous statement of accused,
discloses accused borrowed ₹ 2,00,000/- from the
complainant. Therefore, the presumption contemplated
16
C.C.No.16630/2014
under Section 139 of NI Act., has become more strong.
Thereby, the complainant successfully established that the
cheque Ex.P.1 is issued for legally recoverable debt. The
accused has not Issued reply to the demand notice, it
clearly discloses that the defence set up by the accused is
an afterthought, to avoid the liability. To prove the defence
of the accused, that he used to keep the signed blank
cheque in the shop while he was going out of station to
purchase onion and potatoes, failed to examine the writer
who was aware of the alleged fact, therefore defense of the
accused is not acceptable. With respect to service of notice
Ex.D.3 to Ex.D.6 clearly discloses in the address
mentioned in the notice the accused is running a shop,
therefore, the court can easily presume that the notice is
sent to correct address. When notice is sent to correct
address the presumption contemplated under Section 27 of
General clauses Act., is in favour of the complainant. To
prove contrary the accused has to prove the address is
incorrect or insufficient or the complainant obtained an
17
C.C.No.16630/2014
endorsement on postal cover in collusion with postal
authorities, here no such case is made out by the
complainant. Therefore the contention of the accused that
the notice not served on accused is not acceptable.
Accordingly, prays to convict the accused.
24. The advocate for accused argued as per the
complaint averments and affidavit filed in lieu of
examination in chief the accused alleged to have borrowed
the loan amount on three separate dates starting from
10.10.2009 to 01.07.2011, the cheque issued on
08.05.2013 that is after 3 years from the date of first
transaction. The alleged loan transaction from the date of
first transaction to issuance of cheque becomes a time-
barred debt. The cheque issued for payment of time-barred
debt is not a legally recoverable debt, because no promise
is made in writing in view of Section 25 (3) of Contract Act.
The transaction disclosing in Ex.P8 and Ex.P.9 i.e. bank
statements are of previous transaction held between
complainant and accused with respect to onion trade not
18
C.C.No.16630/2014
with respect to any loan transaction. The transaction find
in Ex.P.10 is not related to the accused and it is self-
withdrawn amount by the complainant and said amount is
never paid to the accused. It is argued that Ex.D.14 and
Ex.D.15 clearly discloses the accused not residing in the
address mentioned in the notice. Thereby, fails to comply
Sec.138 proviso (b), which is mandatory. accordingly prays
to dismiss the complaint.
25. The complainant in his reply argument
submitted though the loan transactions made in three
different dates, the cause of action revived on each
payment. Therefore, the cause of action last revived on the
last payment i.e. on 01.07.2011. From the date
01.07.2011, the cheque issued within 3 years and it is not
a time-barred debt. Further, even assuming for the sake of
argument it is time barred, the issuance of cheque is
nothing but an acknowledgment of debt and a promise to
pay the debt.
19
C.C.No.16630/2014
26. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence
and upon hearing of the arguments of the parties, it is
clear the complainant and accused are known to each
other from their tender age, as could be seen from Ex.P.8
previous statement of accused and admission of given by
the accused in his cross-examination. The accused is doing
onion and potato trade in the name of Ashoka traders at
A.P.M.C. Yashwanthpura since 2007. The cheque Ex.P.1
drawn from the account maintained by the accused.
27. The accused has not disputed the signature
find on the cheque during the cross examination of PW1 or
in his examination in chief. Only when it is specifically
asked by the advocate for complainant, he simply denied
the signature find on the cheque Ex.P1, till such time he
did not contented so. The Ex.P.2 discloses the cheque
Ex.P.1 dishonored for the reason funds insufficient, not for
the reason drawer’s signature differs. If accused really
disputed the signature find on the cheque Ex.P.1, he would
have disputed Ex.P2 and summoned the bank officials to
20
C.C.No.16630/2014
test the veracity of Ex.P2. In the absence of such effort by
the accused, the court can infer that the signature find on
the cheque is of accused.
28. When it is established the cheque drawn from
the account maintained by the accused and signature find
on the cheque is of accused, the presumption
contemplated under Section 139 of NI Act., that the cheque
is issued for discharge of liability or legally recoverable debt
in part or whole, is in favour of the complainant. In
addition to that the Ex.P.8 previous statement of accused
discloses the accused admitted that he has borrowed
₹2,00,000/- from the complainant. To disbelieve the
Ex.P.8, the accused has not offered any explanation. With
the help of Ex.P.8 previous statement, the presumption
becomes more stronger in favour of complainant.
29. When presumption raised in favour of the
complainant, the burden shifts on accused to rebut such
presumption by placing probable defence. In the case, the
21
C.C.No.16630/2014
first and foremost defence of the accused is he had kept
the blank signed cheques in his shop, Prasad, one of his
friends, took the cheque and handed over to the
complainant. To prove the said defence, the accused has
not placed any materials before the court, much less, fails
to examine the Writer who alleged have knows the fact that
the accused used to keep the blank signed cheques, while
going outside to purchase potato and onion. Therefore, the
case of the accused that Prasad took the cheque and
handed over to the complainant is not acceptable.
30. The next contention of the accused is the
demand notice Ex.P.3 is not duly issued or served on the
accused, thereby, the complainant fails to comply proviso
(b) of Section 138 of NI Act., which is mandatory, therefore
no offence is made out against the accused. On perusal of
notice Ex.P.3, the notice sent to two addresses, one to the
shop address and another to the residential address. The
Ex.P6 and Ex.P.7 unserved postal covers discloses they
returned as addressee left. On perusal of Ex.D3 to Ex.D.6
22
C.C.No.16630/2014
and the notice Ex.P.3 together the address of the shop is
correctly mentioned in Ex.P3. When such is the case, the
complainant has issued the notice to the correct address is
duly established. When it is established, the notice is sent
to correct address, the presumption contemplated under
Section 27 of General Clauses Act., is in favour of the
complainant that the notice is duly issued. To prove
contrary, the accused has to establish the address
mentioned in the notice is incorrect or insufficient or the
complainant had hand in glove with postal authorities and
obtained shara on postal covers Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.7. Here,
the accused has not made out any such case. The only
contention of accused is he is residing in the address
mentioned in Ex.D14 and Ex.D.15 but he has not disputed
the address of the shop. Therefore the the contention of the
accused Proviso (b) of sec.138 of NI act., is not complied, is
not acceptable.
31. The last contention of the accused is the
amount claimed by the complainant is a time-barred debt.
23
C.C.No.16630/2014
Therefore, it is not a legally enforceable debt. In this regard
the accused relied upon a judgment of honourable high
court of Katakana in a case between Bidar Urban Co-
operative Bank Ltd., Hyderabad vs Girish late Gunderao
Kulkarni. The accused borrowed ₹2,00,000/- on
10.10.2009, ₹2,00,000/- on 24.10.2009 and ₹2,00,000/-
on 01.07.2011. In total, accused borrowed ₹6,00,000/-
and to repay the total ₹6,00,000/-, accused issued two
cheques, one for ₹ 4,00,000 and another for ₹2,00,000/-
i.e. Ex.P.1 in the case. The advocate for accused argued
that from the date 10.10.2009 to To 08.02.2013, 3 years
lapsed. Therefore, the Debt is time barred one and cheque
issued for time barred debt, is not a legally enforceable
debt. On the other hand, advocate for complainant
contented, the cause of action to recover the amounts is
revised on each payment firstly on 24.09.2009 and
subsequently 01.07.2011. The Ex.P1 is issued within 3
years and the loan amount is not time barred one and it is
well within time. On perusal of complaint and evidence, it
24
C.C.No.16630/2014
is clear the case of the complainant is he has lent
₹2,00,000/- each on three occasions in total ₹6,00,000/-.
All the loan transactions are separate and independent.
Therefore, the Article 19 of Limitation Act is applicable to
the case. Each transaction has separate limitation. The
first two transactions have crossed the time limit to the
date of cheque and the last transaction is well within time.
It is relevant to note it is the case of the complainant, the
accused issued two cheques, one for ₹ 4,00,000 and
another for ₹ 2,00,000 i.e. Ex.P.1. The cheque issued for
Rs.4 lakhs also dishonored and a case has been filed in CC
No. 5833/15 and it is dismissed. The reason for dismissal
is not forthcoming before the court and Both the parties
have failed to produce the judgment of the said case.
Therefore, it is held the cheque issued for 4 lakhs is for
transaction held prior to 01.07.2011 and the cheque
Ex.P.1 issued for the transaction held on 01.07.2011, and
it is well within time. Accordingly I answered Point No.1 in
the affirmative.
25
C.C.No.16630/2014
32. Point No.2: As stated supra the complainant
has proved the guilt of the accused. The cheque issued to
the date 08.05.2013 and the matter came for disposal on
this day after completion of 13 years. It is relevant to note
this case was dismiss for default on 15.06.2016,
subsequently restored on 18.01.2023 by the order of
hon’ble high court in Crl.A.1907/2016. To compensate the
complainant is it just and necessary to impose fine
calculating the interest at 6% per anum on the cheque
amount, leaving the period from dismissal for default till
restoration. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to
compensation of Rs.2,75,000/- hence the following:-
ORDER
Acting under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C.,
the accused is hereby convicted for the
offence punishable u/S.138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act., and sentenced to pay fine
of Rs.2,80,000/- (Rupees two lakh eighty
thousand only), in default he shall undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of 6 (Six)
months.
26
C.C.No.16630/2014
In view of Section 357 of Cr.P.C.,
complainant is entitled to compensation of
Rs.2,75,000/ (Rupees two lakh seventy five
thousand only) out of above said fine
amount.
After collecting the above fine amount,
office is directed to pay Rs.2,75,000/
(Rupees two lakh seventy five thousand
only) to complainant as compensation and
defray remaining fine amount of Rs.5,000/-
(Five Thousand only) to state, after appeal
period is over.
However, accused shall execute
personal bond of Rs.2,80,000/- in view of
Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C.
The office is hereby directed to supply
the copy of this Judgment to the accused on
free of cost.
(Directly dictated to Stenographer on computer, computerized by him, corrected and
then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22nd day of May 2026)
(KRISHNA.J)
LI ADDL. C.J.M., BENGALURU.
27
C.C.No.16630/2014
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE
COMPLAINANT:
PW-1 : S. Suresha
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P-1 : Original Cheque
Ex.P-1(a) : Signature
Ex.P-2 : Cheque return Memo
Ex.P-3 : Legal notice
Ex.P-4 & 5 : Postal receipts
Ex.P-6 & 7 : Unserved RPAD covers
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Nil
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Nil
(KRISHNA.J)
LI ADDL. C.J.M., BENGALURU.
