Bangalore District Court
Smt. Bhagyarathnamma vs M. Srinivas on 16 July, 2026
KABC030083272018
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE CITY
Dated this the 16th day of July 2026
Present : SRI. GOKULA. K
B.A.LL.B.
XXV Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bangalore City.
C.C.No.3182/2018
Complainant : Smt.Bhagyarathnamma
w/o.G.Krishnappa
Aged 60 years
R/at.126/6, HAF Post
Papanna Block
Ganganagar
Bengaluru 560 024.
(By Sri VM Advocate )
V/s
Accused : Sri. M. Srinivas S/o Mariyappa
Aged 32 years
R/at.No.265, 4th main road
HGH-4, Gangappa Block
Ganganagar
Bengaluru 560 032.
(By Sri VM - Advocate )
Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty
Final Orde Accused is Acquitted.
Date of judgment 16-07-2026
2
C.C.No.3182/2018
JUDGMENT
The complainant has filed the complaint under Section 200
of Criminal Procedure Code against the accused for the offence
punishable under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The brief case of the complainant is as under:
It is pleaded that the accused was the tenant in the house
of the complainant and well acquainted with the complainant.
The accused was facing financial problems and he approached
the complainant in the year 2015 and borrowed loan of
Rs.8,00,000/- with a promise to repay the same within short
period. After some time, the complainant requested the accused
to refund the loan amount. Ultimately, the accused towards
repayment of the loan has issued a cheque bearing No.017215
dated 06.12.2017 for a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- drawn on ICICI
Bank, Indiranagar Branch, Bengaluru. The complainant
presented said cheque through her banker ie. KSC Apex Bank,
Ganganagar Branch, Bengaluru 560 032 and said cheque
returned dishonored for the reason “Insufficient Funds” on
07.12.2017. The complainant issued legal notice dated
15.12.2017 and said notice is duly served on the accused on
26.12.2017, but he has not received the same and it is returned
with endorsement “not claimed”. It is pleaded that inspite of
3
C.C.No.3182/2018service of notice, the accused failed to pay due amount to the
complainant. Therefore, the accused has committed the offence
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore the
complainant has filed the complaint.
3. This case is initially filed before XV the ACJM, Bengaluru
City.
4. On the basis of Private complaint filed by the complainant,
the court has taken cognizance of offence and registered the
case in PCR No.856/2018 and recorded sworn statement of the
complainant as PW 1 and got marked 6 documents as Ex.P 1 to
P6. The court by considering the material on record issued
process under Section 204 of Cr.PC by registering the criminal
case. In response to the process issued by this court, the
accused appeared before this court and is released on bail. The
copy of the complaint is served to the accused along with the
summons as contemplated under Section 207 of Criminal
Procedure Code.
5. The substance of the acquisition as provided under
Section 251 of Cr.P.C is read over to the accused and plea is
recorded. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried.
4
C.C.No.3182/2018
6. In view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in Indian Bank Association V/s Union of India and others
reported in AIR 2014 SCW 3463, the affidavit filed by the
complainant at the stage of taking cognizance and documents
marked is treated as evidence under section 145 of Negotiable
Instruments Act. On the application of the accused PW 1 is
recalled and fully cross examined. After closer of evidence of
complainant the court has readover the incriminating
circumstances in the evidence of PW 1 to the accused and
recorded his statement as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
The accused has denied the incriminating circumstances as
false. The accused himself examined as Dw1 and got marked 3
documents as Ex.D1 to Ex. D 3. After closer of evidence of both
parties the court has passed the judgment on 05.07.2019 and
convicted the accused for the offence under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act.
7. The Hon’ble LXVII Addl City Civil & Session Judge, Bengluru
in Crl.A.No.1696/2019 has set aside the judgment and
remanded the case vide order dated 05-11-2024 for giving
opportunity to both parties and for fresh disposal. The Hon’ble
Sessions court in the said order has observed that the trial
court has not considered as to whether the statement discloses
the withdrawal of money as claimed by the complainant. The
5
C.C.No.3182/2018
trial court has not appreciated the evidence in the light of
Section 40A(3) and 269-SS of Income Tax Act. It is also observed
that the trial court has failed to appreciate the admissions
brought out in the cross examination of PW 1. The Hon’ble
Sessions court has also directed to give opportunity to both
parties to examine the witness by name Manjunath, whose
name is mentioned in the witness list.
8. After remand of the case, case is restored on the board of
XVth ACJM, and later the case is transferred to this court vide
orders of Hon’ble CJM Bengaluru City bearing no. ADM I
22/2025 dated 02-12-2025.
9. The presence of both the parties secured before this court.
The opportunity is given to both parties to lead their evidence
and also to examine Mr. Manjunath as per the orders of Hon’ble
Sessions Court. After remand of the matter the PW 1 is further
examined and he has produced two more documents as Ex.P 7
and Ex.P.8 and he is fully cross examined. On the application
of the complainant, DW1 has been recalled and further cross
examination of DW 1 recorded. The accused has filed
application to summon Manjunath as witness. Inspite of
issuance of repeated summons his whereabouts are not traced
and his presence is not secured. The complainant has not made
any attempt to examine Manjunath.
6
C.C.No.3182/2018
10. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the complainant
and arguments of learned counsel for the accused and perused
the material on record.
11. On the basis of the material on record the following points
arise for the consideration of this court :
1. Whether the complainant proves beyond all
reasonable doubt that the accused has issued a
cheque bearing No.017215 dated 06.12.2017
for a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- drawn on ICICI
Bank, Indiranagar Branch, Bengaluru towards
discharge of legally recoverable debt and on
presentation of the same through the
complainant banker i.e. KSC Apex Bank,
Bengaluru, the said cheque returned
dishonored for the reason “Funds Insufficient”
on 07.12.2017 and inspite of issuance of
demand notice dated 15.12.2027, the accused
has not complied the demands in the notice
and thus the accused has committed an
offence punishable under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act ?
2. What Order of Sentence?
12. The findings of this court to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 In the Negative,
Point No.2 As per final order,
for the following :
7
C.C.No.3182/2018
REASONS
13. POINT NO.1: To prove the case, the complainant herself
examined as PW1 and in her evidence affidavit, she has
reiterated the averments made in the complaint. The PW1 has
deposed that the accused was the tenant in her residential
premises. She has deposed that the accused was facing
financial problems and the accused approached her for financial
assistance in the year 2015 and borrowed loan of Rs.8,00,000/-
with a promise to repay the same within short period. The PW
1 further deposed that, after some time when she requested the
accused to refund the loan amount, the accused has issued a
cheque bearing No.017215 dated 06.12.2017 for a sum of
Rs.8,00,000/- drawn on ICICI Bank, Indiranagar Branch,
Bengaluru. The PW 1 has produced said cheque as Ex.P.1. The
PW 1 has further deposed that when said cheque was presented
through her banker i.e. KSC Apex Bank, Ganganagar Branch,
Bengaluru 560 032 for collection, said cheque returned
dishonored for the reason “Insufficient Funds” on 07.12.2017.
The PW 1 has produced the return memo as Exhibit P2. The
PW1 has deposed that she has issued the demand notice to the
accused on 15.12.2017. Said notice is marked as Ex.P.3. The
PW 1 has further deposed that said notice returned unserved for
the reason “not claimed” on 26.12.2017. She has deposed that
the accused intentionally refused to receive the notice. Hence,
8
C.C.No.3182/2018
the notice is deemed to be served on the accused on
26.12.2017. The complainant has produced postal receipt as
Exhibit P4 and the postal envelope as Ex.P.5. She has deposed
that in spite of service of the notice the accused has not
complied the demands in the notice and committed the default.
14. Now it is proper to consider whether the complainant has
complied all the statutory requirements for commission of
offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The
essential ingredients of section 138 and 142 of Negotiable
Instruments Act to be complied are i) drawing of the cheque by
the accused ii) presentation of the cheque to the bank with in
the period of three months, iii) returning of the cheque unpaid
by the drawee bank iv) giving notice in writing to the drawer of
the cheque demanding of the payment of cheque amount with
in the period of 30 days, v) failure of the drawer to make
payment within the period of 15 days after receipt of the
demand notice and v) Presentation of the complaint within a
month by the complainant after expiry of 15 days of service of
notice to the accused. Therefore it is proper to consider
whether the statutory requirements for constituting the offence
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is complied by
the complainant.
9
C.C.No.3182/2018
15. The cheque is dated 06.12.2017. The cheque is presented
for collection and it is dishonored on 07.12.2017 for the reason
” Funds insufficient”. The demand notice is issued on
15.12.2017, it is returned as refused on 26.12.2017. The cause
of action for prosecution arose on expiry of 15 days after service
of demand notice on 11.01.2018. The complaint is filed before
this court on 22.01.2018. The cheque is presented for collection
through KSC Apex Bank, Ganganagar branch, Bengaluru,
situated within the jurisdiction of this court. Thus the
complainant has complied all the statutory requirements of
Section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The
accused, who examined as DW1 in the cross-examination, has
admitted that the cheque is drawn from his account. He has
also admitted his signature on the cheque. The accused has
also admitted that notice is served to his address by the postal
authority. He has deposed that at the time of arrival of the
notice, he was not in the station and he went to Anekal and
thereafter he has not contacted the postal authority about the
said notice. He has also admitted that he was residing in House
No. 265, Gangappa block, Ganganagara-Bangalore. Therefore, it
is clear that the notice is issued to the correct address of the
accused and the said notice is returned unclaimed by the
accused. The accused has not taken any steps to examine the
postal authority to dispute correctness of the postal
10
C.C.No.3182/2018
endorsement, which is made in discharge of official duty by the
postal authority.
16. The provisions of Section 118 provides for presumption as to
negotiable Instruments which reads as follows –
118- Presumptions as to negotiable Instruments –
Until the contrary is proved, the following
presumptions shall be made – (a) of consideration –
that every negotiable Instrument was made or drawn
for consideration, and that every such instrument,
when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or
transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or
transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or
transferred for consideration; (b) as to date – that
every negotiable instrument bearing a date was made
or drawn on such date; (c) ………………
The provisions of Section 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act
reads as under:-
139- Presumption in favour of holder – It should be
presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the
holder of a cheque received the cheque, of the nature
referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole
or in part, of any debt or other liability.
[
17. Hon’ble Supreme court in a decision reported in (2010) 11
SCC 411 between Rangappa V/s Sri Mohan has held that –
11
C.C.No.3182/2018
The presumption mandated by Section 139
of the act does indeed include the existence
of a legally enforceable debt or liability.
18. In the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Jain v.
Ajay Singh, (2023) 10 SCC 148, it is held that
35. The Court will necessarily presume that the
cheque had been issued towards discharge of a
legally enforceable debt/liability in two
circumstances. Firstly, when the drawer of the
cheque admits issuance/execution of the cheque
and secondly, in the event where the complainant
proves that cheque was issued/executed in his
favour by the drawer.
42. The nature of evidence required to shift the
evidential burden need not necessarily be direct
evidence i.e. oral or documentary evidence or
admissions made by the opposite party; it may
comprise circumstantial evidence or presumption
of law or fact.
19. Learned counsel for the complaint has also relied on the
decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2018 SC
3601 between T . P. Murugan v. Bhojan. In this decision also, it
is held that the presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable
Instruments Act is rebuttable presumption and if the
presumption is not rebutted, the complaint is not required to
prove the existence of debt.
12
C.C.No.3182/2018
20. Therefore, in view of the principles laid down in these
decision, once the complainant has proved execution and
issuance of cheque, the onus is on the accused to rebut the
presumption under 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. As
discussed above, the complainant has complied the basic
requirements of law and hence he is entitled for presumption
under Section 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
Therefore the onus is on the accused to rebut the presumption.
Therefore now it is proper to consider the defence of the
accused.
21. The defence of the accused is that he was the tenant under
[
the complainant. In respect of payment of rent, and amount
availed by his wife from the complainant, there was due amount
of Rs.1,00,000/- payable by the wife of the accused to the
complainant. In respect of said due amount, his wife has been
paying interest at the rate of 10%. But thereafter she was not
able to pay the interest. Then the complainant has quarreled
with his wife near his house and at that time his wife has
handed over Cheque No.017215 and 017216 to the complainant.
It is further case of the accused is that thereafter in October
2017 his wife has repaid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest of
Rs.10,000/- totally for Rs.1,10,000/-. At the time of repayment
of the amount, his wife has asked for return of the cheques
13
C.C.No.3182/2018
obtained by the complainant. Then the complainant has
represented that said cheques were misplaced and not traceable.
With regard to the said cheques, the complainant has given one
document which is marked as Exhibit D2. It is the case of the
accused that in the case filed by the complainant against his wife
in CC No. 3183/2018 in the evidence of the complainant, she
has admitted Exhibit D2 document. The accused has produced
the said deposition of the complainant as Exhibit D3. Thus the
defence of the accused is that his wife was due to pay a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant and the complainant came
near their house and quarreled with his wife. Then his wife has
issued two of his cheques to the complainant. It is further case
of the accused that, thereafter his wife has repaid the loan. But
the complainant has not returned the cheques and in respect of
said aspect the complainant has executed Exhibit D2
acknowledgment.
22. To substantiate said defence, the accused has produced
Exhibit D2 acknowledgment of the complainant and Exhibit D3
the deposition of the complainant in CC No. 3183/2018. The
contents of Exhibit D2 reads as under –
ಭಾಗ್ಯರತ್ನಮ್ಮ ಆದ ನಾನು ಹೇಳಿ ಬರೆಯಿಸಿದ ಪತ್ರವಾಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ. ಪಾರ್ವತಿಯವರು 3
ಖಾಲಿ ಚೆಕ್ಗಳು ನನಗೆ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ನನ್ನ ಹಣವನ್ನು ಹಿಂತಿರುಗಿಸಿರುವುದರಿಂದ ಈ 3
ಖಾಲಿ ಚೆಕ್ಕುಗಳು ಕಳೆದುಹೋಗಿರುವುದರಿಂದ ಚೆಕ್ ನಂಬರ್ 976119 ಮತ್ತು ಚೆಕ್
14
C.C.No.3182/2018
ನಂಬರು 017215 ಮತ್ತು ಚೆಕ್ ನಂಬರು 017216 ಈ ಚೆಕ್ಕುಗಳು ಸಿಕ್ಕ ಮೇಲೆ ನಿಮಗೆ
ಪಾರ್ವತಿಯವರಿಗೆ ಕೊಡುತ್ತೇನೆ. ಸಹಿ/- ಭಾಗ್ಯರತ್ನಮ್ಮ ಕೆ .
With regard to Exhibit D2, the complainant as per Ex.D 3
deposition in CC No. 3183/2018 has deposed as under –
ಸಾಕ್ಷಿದಾರರು ಆರೋಪಿ ಪರ ವಕೀಲರು ತೋರಿಸುವ ಒಂದು ದಾಖಲೆಯನ್ನು ನೋಡಿ
ಅದಕ್ಕೆ ಇರುವ ಸಹಿ ತಮ್ಮದು ಎಂದು ಒಪ್ಪಿಕೊಂಡಾಗ ಆದ ದಾಖಲೆಯನ್ನು ನಿ.ಡಿ. 1
ಎಂದು ಗುರುತಿಸಲಾಯಿತು. ನಿ.ಡಿ. 1 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಬರೆದಿರುವ ವಿಷಯ ಗೊತ್ತು. ನಿ.ಡಿ. 1
ದಾಖಲೆಯನ್ನು ಸಾಕ್ಷಿದಾರರು ಓದಿದ ನಂತರ ಅದರ ಪ್ರಕಾರ 3 ಚೆಕ್ಕುಗಳನ್ನು ಆರೋಪಿ
ನೀಡಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಆದರೆ 2 ಚೆಕ್ಕುಗಳನ್ನು ನೀಡಿರುವುದಾಗಿ ಹೇಳುತ್ತಾರೆ.
ಅವುಗಳ ನಂಬರ್ 976119 ಮತ್ತು 017215 ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ ನಿ.ಡಿ. 1 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಈ ಎರಡೂ
ಚಕ್ಕುಗಳ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಉಲ್ಲೇಖಿಸಿರುವುದು ಸರಿ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ. ಆದರೆ ಇನ್ನೊಂದು ಚಕ್ಕಿನ ಬಗ್ಗೆ
ಉಲ್ಲೇಖಿಸಿರುವುದು ಸರಿ ಅಲ್ಲ . ಈ ಚೆಕ್ಕಿನ ನಂಬರು 017216 ಇದು
ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ್ಟಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಸಹಿಯನ್ನು ನಿ.ಡಿ. 1 (ಎ) ಎಂದು ಗುರುತಿಸಲಾಯಿತು.
23. Thus, upon considering this portion of evidence, along with
averments in Exhibit D 2, the complainant has very clearly
admitted execution of Exhibit D2 acknowledgment and also
admitted contents of the same except Cheque No.017216. In this
case, the Exhibit P1 cheque is bearing number 017215.
Therefore, it is clear that the cheque referred in Exhibit D2
acknowledgment is the same cheque produced as Exhibit P1. As
per Exhibit D3, the complainant has denied the suggestion of the
accused that she has executed Exhibit D2 acknowledgment at
15
C.C.No.3182/2018
the time of quarrel by saying that three cheques were
dishonored. With regard to Exhibit D2 document, in the cross-
examination of DW1, complainant has made the suggestion that
complainant has not executed Exhibit D2 document and it is
created by the accused by forging the signature of the
complainant. But in view of categorical admission of the
complainant in Exhibit D3, deposition in CC No. 3183/2018,
this suggestion will not have much evidentiary value.
[[[
24. This evidence brought on record by the accused,
probabilises that the amount availed by the wife of the accused
is returned by her. But the complainant who had the custody of
cheques has not returned the said cheques. Exhibit D2
acknowledgment also reflects the cheque number produced in
this case as Exhibit P1 is one of the cheque agreed to be
returned and claimed as misplaced. Therefore, it is clear that
The Exhibit P1 cheque is obtained by the complainant towards
the security of the amount due from the wife of the accused and
in Exhibit D2 the complainant has admitted return of the
amount and also stated that the cheque was misplaced and she
has agreed to return the cheque to the wife of the accused. It is
settled principle of law that the accused need not prove his
defence with cogent evidence. If the accused is able to bring on
record a probable evidence, it is sufficient for rebuttal of the
16
C.C.No.3182/2018
presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Therefore, In view of this evidence placed on record by the
accused, this Court is of the considered view that the evidence
placed by the accused is sufficient for rebuttal of the
presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
25. Another line of defence of the accused is that the
complainant is not having sufficient amount to lend a sum of
Rs.8,00,000/- to the accused. As per the case of the
complainant, she has lent a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- to the accused
and a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the wife of the accused. Thus, she
has lent totally a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. The accused has
disputed about the financial capacity of the complainant to lend
a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. This Court while deciding this case at
the earlier point of time has held that the husband of the
complainant is the retired employee of BESCOM and the son of
the complainant is working at London and hence the
complainant is having stable financial capacity to lend the
amount. But the Hon’ble Sessions Court, while remanding the
matter, has not accepted the findings recorded by the court and
directed this Court to examine the financial capacity of the
complainant and source of money from which the complainant
has lent the amount and also directed this Court to examine in
the light of the requirements of Income Tax Act.
17
C.C.No.3182/2018
26. To prove the financial capacity, the complainant has
produced the statement of fixed deposits of her husband
Krishnappa as Exhibit P6. It shows that they are having fixed
deposits of ₹69,63,000/- and they have received interest for a
period from 01.04.2014 to 31.05.2025 for Rs.4,69,054/-. It is
not the case of the complainant that she has withdrawn the fixed
deposits and lent a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to the accused and
his wife. Therefore, Exhibit P6 only shows that during the year
01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015 the husband of the complainant has
received interest income of Rs.4,69,054/-. Further, the
complainant has produced the statement of accounts in respect
of her account with Karnataka State Cooperative Apex Bank for
a period from 01.01.2010 to 01.01.2015. On perusal of the same
the maximum amount in deposit in the said account in the year
2012 is ₹ 3,82,255/-. As per the pleadings of the complainant
she has lent the amount in the year 2015. But the statement of
account shows that the closing balance as on 30.09.2014 is only
Rs.9,990/-. Therefore this document also does not aid the
complainant to prove the existing financial capacity to lend the
amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the accused and his wife. Exhibit
P8 is the statement of accounts of the husband of the
complainant with Karnataka State Cooperative Apex Bank for a
period from 01.01.2010 to 15.01.2015. This also shows the
closing balance as on 12.01.2015, its only Rs.2,495/-. Therefore,
18
C.C.No.3182/2018
this statement of accounts also not show the existing financial
capacity of the complainant to lend a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to
the accused and his wife. In the cross-examination, the PW1 has
deposed that she has paid the loan amount by way of cash and
she has deposed that her son is working at London and her
husband is retired from government service. But she has not
deposed from which source she has accumulated a sum of Rs.
10,00,000/- to lend to the accused and his wife. She has
deposed that portion of the amount was with her in the home
and portion of the amount she has withdrawn from the bank.
But to substantiate withdrawal of the amount she has not
produced any material before the court. In the cross-
examination, PW1 has also deposed that she has withdrawn the
amount from her ICICI bank account in the year 2015. But to
substantiate said amount she has not produced any material
and the bank statement of her account with ICICI bank.
[
27. Therefore, from the evidence on record, the complainant has
not produced the documents to prove the source of income from
which she has lent a sum of Rs10,00,000/- to the accused and
her wife. This also gives a probable doubt that the accused and
his wife have availed a sum of Rs10,00,000/- from the
complainant. If she really paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, she
19
C.C.No.3182/2018
should have explained the source of income by producing
evidence on record.
28. The Hon’ble Sessions Court, while remanding the matter,
has directed the court to examine the income tax returns of the
complainant or her husband. But, in spite of granting sufficient
opportunity, the Complainant has not produced any of income
tax returns before this court to evaluate the same. Therefore, an
adverse inference can be drawn against the complainant that
they have not shown about the amount lent to the accused and
also an inference can be drawn that declared income shows that
the complainant is not having sufficient financial capacity to
lend a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to the accused and his wife.
In this regard, Learned counsel for the accused has relied on
the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2015 1 SCC
99 between K. Subramani v. K. Damodar Prabu .In this decision,
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that even though the
complainant is having benefit of presumption under Section 139
of Negotiable Instruments Act, if the complainant could not prove
source of income from which alleged loan was made to the
accused, is also one of the grounds for rebuttal of the
presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act,
and it can be ascertained from the evidence placed on record.
20
C.C.No.3182/2018
Therefore, in this case, when the accused has seriously disputed
the source of income of the complainant and the Hon’ble
Sessions Court has also remanded the matter with a direction to
lead evidence with regard to source of income, the complainant
should have produced the source of income from which she has
lent the amount. As discussed above, the Exhibit P6 to Exhibit
P8 produced by the complainant does not show that at the
relevant point of time the complainant had sufficient fund or
has withdrawn any amount for lending to the accused.
[[
29. The complainant in the list of witnesses has shown one
Manjunath as witness, but the complainant has not examined
said Manjunath before this court and also not stated the role of
Manjunath in the transactions. The accused has made attempts
to examine said Manjunath as per the directions of Hon’ble
Sessions Court, but his presence is not secured in spite of
issuance of repeated warrant. The complainant has not assisted
to secure the presence of said Manjunath in spite of the orders of
the Hon’ble Sessions Court. Therefore, it can also be inferred
that the complainant is not intended to examine said Manjunath
before this Court, as his evidence will adversely affect the case of
the complainant or he has no role to play in the transactions
alleged.
21
C.C.No.3182/2018
30. Therefore, upon appreciating the entire evidence on record,
this Court is of the considered view that the material placed by
the accused, such as Exhibit D2 and D3, and the defence taken
by the accused about the Source of income of the complainant
and their financial capacity to lend a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to
the accused and his wife also a probable evidence to doubt the
statement of the complainant that she has lent a sum of Rs.
8,00,000/- to the accused and Rs.2,00,000/- to the wife of the
accused by way of cash.
31. By producing Exhibit D2, the accused has substantiated his
defence that his wife has availed some amount from the
complainant and there were rental dues totally for Rs.1,00,000/-
and upon repayment of the said amount the complainant has
represented that the cheques were misplaced and assured to
return the cheque after securing the same. This acknowledgment
of the accused also probabilises the defence raised by the
accused.
32. On the other hand, in view of the rebuttal or the
presumption with probable evidence by the accused, the
complainant should have proved the fact with cogent evidence
about lending of Rs. 8,00,000/- to accused and issuance of
cheque by the accused towards discharge of said amount. But
22
C.C.No.3182/2018
the complainant has not produced any material to substantiate
the claim with cogent evidence. The fact of lending of Rs.
8,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- to the accused and his wife is not
proved. The complainant has also not produced any material
evidence to prove that the Exhibit P1 cheque is issued by the
accused for discharge of said liability by producing cogent and
convincing evidence. Therefore, this Court can safely conclude
that the complainant has failed to prove the guilt of the accused
beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the complainant failed
in proving the commission of the offence by the accused under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, this Court
answers the above point number 1 in the negative.
33. POINT NO. 2 : While answering the point no. 1 this court
concluded that the complainant has failed to prove that the
accused has committed the offence punishable under Section
138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore the accused is
entitled for acquittal for the offence alleged under Section 138
of Negotiable Instruments Act.
34. On perusal of the records, it appears that the Hon’ble
Sessions Court, in Criminal Appeal 1696/2019, vide Order
dated 13.11.2019, has awarded interim compensation to
complainant and directed this Court to release 20% of the fine
amount deposited by the accused before this Court in favour of
23
C.C.No.3182/2018
the complainant upon executing personal bond with a surety for
like sum. Accordingly, vide Order No. 26.11.2019, this Court
has ordered to release a sum of ₹ 1,60,000/- deposited by the
accused in favour of the complainant upon execution of
indemnity bond and furnishing surety for like sum.
As provided under Section 148(3) of NI Act, if the
appellant is acquitted, the court shall direct the complainant to
repay to the appellant the amount so released with interest at
the bank rate as published by Reserve Bank of India, prevalent
at the beginning of the relevant financial year within 60 days
from the date of the order or within such further period not
exceeding 90 days, as may be directed by the court on sufficient
cause being shown by the complainant. As provided under
Section 143A(4) there is similar provision is made for recovery of
the fine amount or interim compensation collected by the
complainant in the event of acquittal of the accused. In this
case, the Hon’ble Sessions Court has not passed order of
acquittal, but it has set aside the order of conviction and
remanded the matter to this court. As discussed above, in this
case, the Complainant has failed to prove the guilt of the
accused and the accused is entitled for acquittal. Therefore, the
complainant is required to refund the interim compensation
amount for a sum of ₹ 1,60,000/- with prevailing rate of interest
24
C.C.No.3182/2018
to the accused within 60 days from this date. As per the
guidelines off Reserve Bank of India the prevailing bank interest
rate is 5.50% in the beginning of financial year 2026-27.
Therefore this court proceed to pass the following –
ORDER
By exercising powers conferred U/sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C.,
the accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
The bail bond and surety bond of the accused shall be in
force for a period of 6 months for the purposes of Section 437 A
of Cr.P.C.
The accused is set at liberty.
Acting under Section 143A(4) of NI Act, the complainant is
directed to refund the interim compensation amount received by
her for a sum of ₹ 1,60,000/- to the accused with interest at the
rate of 5.50% per annum from 03.01.2020 till payment of entire
amount with in 60 days from this day. In default, the accused is
at liberty to proceed in accordance with law to recover the said
amount from the complainant.
(Partly dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, typed by her,
partly dictated to Adalath ai, computer application, transcribed by it,
corrected and signed then pronounced by me in the open court on this the
16th day of July 2026).
(GOKULA.K)
XXV A.C.J.M., BANGALORE CITY.
25
C.C.No.3182/2018
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
PW.1 : Smt.Bhagyarathnamma
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P1 : Cheque Ex.P2 : Bank Endorsement Ex.P3 : Office copy of Legal Notice Ex.P4 : Postal receipt Ex.P5 : Postal Envelope Ex.P6 : Bank Statement Ex.P7 : Bank Account Statement Ex.P8 : Bank Account Statement
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE ACCUSED:
DW.1 : M. Srinivas
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE ACCUSED:
Ex.D1 : Rent Agreement.
Ex.D2 : C/c of acknowledgment of
complainant.
Digitally
Ex.D3 : C/c of deposition of complainant in signed by
GOKULA K
C.C.No.3183/2018. GOKULA
Date:
K 2026.07.16
16:30:43
+0530
(GOKULA.K.)
XXV A.C.J.M., BANGALORE CITY.
26
C.C.No.3182/2018
