Bangalore District Court
Shruthi R vs B Venkatesh on 18 July, 2026
KABC010017662024
IN THE COURT OF THE LXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY(CCH-62)
-: PRESENT :-
Sri .K.Narayana Prasad, B.Sc., LL.M.,
LXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bangalore
: Crl.A. No.117/2024 :
DATE: THIS THE 18th DAY OF JULY 2026
APPELLANT/ 1. Smt.Shruthi R
ACCUSED W/o Prathap
Aged about 32 years
Rat No.9, 10th Cross,
1st main, Ambedkar
Colony, Bhovipalya
Mahalaxmipuram
Bengaluru
[By Sri.V.H. - Advocate]
V/s
RESPONDENT/ : Sri.B.Venkatesh
COMPLAINANT S/o B.M.Bandappa
Aged about 65 years
R/at No.88, Nagadevanahalli
Gfollarahalli, Near R.R.layout,
Bengaluru
[By Sri.S.M.H.. - Advocate]
2
Crl.A.No.117/2024
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal filed U/s 374(3) of Cr.P.C.
questioning the validity, correctness and legality of judgment
of conviction passed in C.C.No.17458/2021 by the XXXVI
Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru on
22.12.2023. The said court hereinafter referred to as trial
court.
2. The rank of the parties are referred to as
complainant and accused for clarity and clear understanding
and to avoid confusion.
3. This is an appeal filed by the accused against the
orders of conviction passed by the learned Magistrate. The
complainant has filed a case against the accused before trial
court for the offence punishable U/s 138 of N.I.Act alleging
that the accused received a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the
complainant for her children’s education and to perform
house warming ceremony. Later, the accused failed to repay
the amount. Towards repayment accused issued cheque
bearing No.509082 dated 14.01.2021 for a sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on IDBI, HSR Layout, Branch
Bengaluru which when presented returned unpaid with an
endorsement “funds insufficient”. Later the accused was
called upon make good the payment and in spite of service
of notice the did not repaid the amount. Accordingly, a
3
Crl.A.No.117/2024
complaint under Sec.200 for the offence punishable under
Sec.138 of N.I.Act is filed.
4. The learned Magistrate has recorded sworn
statement and issued summons to accused and after
securing the presence of accused she was enlarged on bail.
For the substance of accusation read over and explained,
accused denied the same and claimed trial.
5. The complainant got himself examined as PW.1
and documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 are marked on his behalf.
The statement of accused U/s 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded
for which the accused denied complicity in the matter and the
accused herself examined as D.W.1 and got marked Ex.D.1
to D.7.
6. After hearing the arguments, the learned
Magistrate has convicted the accused by judgment dated
17458/2021 for the offence punishable U/s 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act and imposed fine of Rs.2,50,000/- in default
sentence of six months. It is also ordered by the trial court
that out of fine amount a sum of Rs.2,45,000/- shall be paid
to the complainant as compensation and remaining amount
of Rs.5,000/- shall be confiscated to the State.
7. Aggrieved by the said judgment of Conviction the
accused/appellant has filed the present appeal on various
grounds. Some of the main grounds are that, the trial court
has committed error in passing the judgment which is liable
4
Crl.A.No.117/2024
to be reversed. There is no legally recoverable debt and
there is no proper reasons assigned to hold that
Rs.2,00,000/- was given to accused as hand loan. The
evidence placed before the court is not convincing. The trial
court errored in coming to the conclusion that complainant
has advanced loan amount to the respondent. The appellant
never availed such hand aid loan amount and the reasons
for loan is also not proved by the complainant in any manner.
The complainant is not even aware of the age of appellant,
the details of family of appellant, educational details of
children etc. The appellant has already performed house
warming ceremony and there is no necessity for her to avail
loan in any manner. In view of all these the appellant prayed
for setting aside the order passed by the trial court.
8. On issuance of notice the respondent appeared
through his advocate. Heard the arguments of both aside.
9. After going through trial court records and the
grounds of appeal, the points that arise for determination are:
1. Whether the complainant has
established and proved before the trial
court that towards legally recoverable
debt accused issued Cheque
No.509082 dated 14.01.2021 for a sum
of Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on IDBI, HSR
Layout branch, in favour of complainant,
which when presented for encashment
returned unpaid with an endorsement
“funds insufficient” and even after
5
Crl.A.No.117/2024issuance of legal notice the accused
has not complied the terms of notice
which is an offence punishable U/s 138
of N.I.Act ?
2. Whether the appellant has made out
grounds that this court to interfere with
the order passed by the trial court?
3. What Order?
10. My answers to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative
Point No.2: In the Negative
Point No.3: As per final order for
the following;
REASONS
11. POINTS NO.1 and 2 :- These points are
considered together as they are interlinked to each other. It
is also done with a view to avoid repetition of facts.
12. The learned counsel for the appellant in his
argument vehemently submitted that the positive evidence
led by the accused and documents produced by her clearly
shows that there is no legally recoverable debt. The
allegation in the complaint that hand loan was given for the
purpose of house warming ceremony and educational needs
are nothing but falsehood. The complainant has not proved
the legally recoverable debt and accordingly prays for
allowing the appeal.
6
Crl.A.No.117/2024
13. The learned counsel for the Appellant relies on
following decision:
1. Veerayya V/s G.K.Madivalar reported in 2012(3)
KCCR 2057
2. 2019(5) SCC 418 Basalingappa V/s
Mudibasappa
3. 2020 SCC Online (KAR) 1750 Sunitha V/s
Sheela Antony and another
4. 2020(12) SCC 724 APS Forex Services Pvt ltd
V/s Shakti International Fashion Linkers and others
14. On the other hand, the learned counsel in the
respondent submits that the entire defence set up by the
accused is nothing but cooked up story and there is no
acceptable evidence placed by the accused in order to rebut
the presumption. Hence prays for dismissal of appeal.
15. On going through the complaint the specific case
of the complainant is that accused borrowed a sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant for the purpose of
performing house warming ceremony and also for
educational needs of her children. When repayment was
insisted cheque the in question was issued which when
presented returned unpaid with an endorsement “insufficient
funds”. Later a legal notice is issued and even after service
7
Crl.A.No.117/2024
and legal notice, the accused has not complied the terms of
notice etc.
16. On going through the cross examination of P.W.1
the accused mainly contends that mother-in-law of accused
has borrowed money from one Raniyamma, and there is no
transaction between accused and complainant in any
manner. The said Raniyamma came to the house of the
accused and she has misused the cheque and filed false
case through the complainant.
17. The accused has led evidence before this court
and states that Raniyamma is doing money lending business
and the signed cheque kept in house of the accused is
missing from the date Raniyamma visited her house.
Raniyamma used to come to her house in order to collect
interest from Smt.Savitramma who is the mother-in-law of
accused. The accused produced house warming ceremony
photograph Ex.D.1 to 3 and CD Ex.D.4 and her children birth
certificate Ex.D.5 and 6 and Ex.D.7 Hakku Patra. The
accused contention before the court is that she has already
performed house warming ceremony long back on
17.08.2019 itself and her children are very small children and
there is no necessity for her to avail any loan from the
complainant etc. During the course of cross examination,
accused clearly admits that she has not taken any action
against misuse of cheque. The accused is not clear as to
8
Crl.A.No.117/2024
how the signed cheque got into the hands of Raniyamma or
to the complainant. The complainant has denied the
relationship with Raniyamma in any manner. However during
the course of cross examination of P.W.1, the complainant
admits the presence of Raniyamma in the court. The said
fact by itself is not sufficient to discredit the case of the
complainant and to hold that accused has rebutted the
presumption.
18. Even though, the accused contends that there
was some transaction between Smt.Savitramma and
Raniyamma, in such transaction Raniyamma used to come
to her house and the cheque was lost etc., in order to prove
such facts she has not examined her mother-in-law
Smt.Savitramma in any manner. It appears that Savitramma
was present before the court during the course of cross
examination of P.W.1. Why Savitramma is not examined at
least to show the transaction between Savitramma and
Raniyamma is not made known to the trial court. Apart from
that why signed cheque is kept in the house and why even
after loss of cheque it is not informed to the bank or the
police is the matter needs to understood properly. These
facts gives raise to doubting the genuineness of the defence
of the accused.
19. The defence set up by the accused that she has
performed house warming ceremony and her children are
9
Crl.A.No.117/2024
very small by itself not sufficient to totally ignore the case of
the complainant. The accused never denies issuance of
cheque and signature found on the cheque. When once the
cheque is produced and reasons for its return is disclosed,
the fact especially legally recoverable debt is required to be
presumed by applying the presumption under Sec.118 and
139 of N.I.Act , however it is rebuttable presumption. The
evidence and documents placed before the trial court by the
accused is not sufficient to hold that she has rebutted the
presumption.
20. During the course of cross examination the
accused has disputed the receipt of notice. On perusal of the
postal acknowledgment Ex.P.4 it is clearly stated that one
Savitramma has received the article. If Savitramma the
mother-in-law of accused has received such article nothing
prevented the accused from taking any action against the
complainant or to issue proper reply at relevant point of time.
It is not the case of the accused that Savitramma is not
residing with her. On the other hand during the cross
examination she categorically admits that Savitramma is
residing with her. The said Savitramma is none other than
mother-in-law of accused. Hence issuance of notice and
receipt of notice is established. When receipt of notice is
established the silence of accused in not answering such
notice and not taking any action against the complainant or
10
Crl.A.No.117/2024
Raniyamma for alleged misuse of cheque has to be viewed
in proper perspective.
21. In the grounds of appeal much has been stated
about the complainant not knowing the age of the appellant
and details of family of appellant and education details of
children etc. Considering the nature of complaint filed against
the accused, the said facts by itself will not resulting doubting
the entire transaction. Accordingly there is no merits in
raising such grounds before this court.
22. In view of the above discussion this court is of
the view that the grounds urged before this court are not
strong enough to hold the accused has rebutted the
presumption. The citations relied by the accused are all well
settled. With great respect this court is of the view that the
citations relied by the accused are not applicable to the
present set of facts since the accused has not placed
convincing materials or evidence to believe that she has
successfully rebutted the presumption.
23. The Negotiable Instruments Act has a very
strong presumptions of law. These presumptions are
enumerated under Sec.118 and 139 of the Act. These
presumptions are not as light as Sec.114 of Indian Evidence
Act. They are very strong presumptions of law but they are
rebuttable in nature. In order to rebut the presumption the
accused in this case never shown any satisfactory proof that
11
Crl.A.No.117/2024
cheque is not issued towards legally recoverable debt. This
court on careful re-appreciation of documents and evidence,
is of the view that, the presumptions under N.I.Act are not
rebutted as required under law. When presumptions are
drawn, it gives a clear picture that Ex.P.1 cheque is issued
towards legally recoverable debt, which when presented
returned unpaid with an endorsement insufficient funds. The
complainant has complied all the terms and conditions
mentioned in Sec.138 of N.I.Act by issuing notice and also
by presenting the complaint within prescribed period.
Accordingly, this court finds no merits in the appeal filed
before this court.
24. In view of these discussions, this court is of the
view that the trial court has considered each and every
aspect as required under law and drew presumption in
accordance with N.I.Act. The reasons assigned by the trial
court cannot be interfered with in the absence of valid
grounds. The grounds urged before this court are not strong
enough to interfere with the reasoned order passed by the
trial court after considering the evidence and documents on
record.
25. Having regard to all these discussions and
further considering the nature of complaint filed against the
accused, this court is of the view that the complainant has
successfully proved that the accused has issued Ex.P.1
12
Crl.A.No.117/2024
cheque towards legally recoverable debt without making
proper arrangement of funds. When the said cheque was
presented for encashment, it returned unpaid and a legal
notice as required under Section 138 of N.I.Act has been
caused and there is a strict compliance of the terms set out
under Section 138 of N.I.Act. In view of all these, this court is
of the view that the complainant has proved the case against
the accused and there is absolutely no scope for any
interference on the judgment and sentence passed by the
trial court. Hence, looking from any angle, the judgment and
sentence passed by the trial court is legally permissible and
required to be confirmed in the interest of justice.
Considering all these point No.1 is answered in the
‘Affirmative’ and there is no scope for the interference of
this court. Hence, point No.2 is answered in the ‘Negative’.
Resultantly, this appeal fails and order passed by the trial
court required to be confirmed.
26. Point No.3:- For the reasons stated and findings
given on point No.1& 2, the following:-
ORDER
Appeal filed U/s 374(3) of Cr.P.C
against the Order passed/ by the
trial court in C.C.No.17458/2021 by
the XXXVI Addl.Chief Metropolitan
13
Crl.A.No.117/2024Magistrate, Bengaluru on
22.12.2023 is dismissed.
The Judgment and sentence
passed by the trial court is
confirmed.
The accused/appellant has to pay
the costs of this proceeding to the
complainant/respondent.
Office to send copy of this
judgment to the trial court for
reference along with trial court
records.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by her, corrected
and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of
July 2026).
Digitally signed by
KANTHAVARA KANTHAVARA
NARAYANA NARAYANA PRASAD
PRASAD Date: 2026.07.18
17:40:43 +0530
( K.Narayana Prasad )
LXI Addl.City Civil & Session
Judge, Bengaluru.
14
Crl.A.No.117/2024
Judgment pronounced in open Court
(vide separate order)
ORDER
Appeal filed U/s 374(3) of Cr.P.C
against the Order passed/ by the trial
court in C.C.No.17458/2021 by the
XXXVI Addl.Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru on 22.12.2023
is dismissed.
The Judgment and sentence passed
by the trial court is confirmed.
The accused/appellant has to pay
the costs of this proceeding to the
complainant/respondent.
Office to send copy of this judgment
to the trial court for reference along
with trial court records.
( K.Narayana Prasad )
LXI ACC & SJ, B’luru.
