Bangalore District Court
Sri. Chandrashekara vs Siddaraju ( Karnataka State Police) on 21 July, 2025
1 CC.No.5988/2024
0
KABC030113222024
Presented on : 27-02-2024
Registered on : 27-02-2024
Decided on : 21-07-2025
Duration : 1 years, 4 months, 23 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Dated : This the 21st day of July 2025
Present: Smt.Tejaswini K.M, B.A.L., L.L.M.
XVI Addl.C.J.M., Bengaluru City.
Case No. C.C.No
: .5988/2024
Complainant : Sri. Chandrashekara
S/o Nagaraju,
Aged 43 years
R/at 202, 27/B, ITI Layout,
Vijinapura,
Bangalore - 560016.
(By Sri.S.Balu., Adv,)
V/s
Accused : Siddaraju
(Karnataka State Police)
S/o Late Maridasashetty
Vaddana Hosahalli Village
and Puttanapura Post,
2 CC.No.5988/2024
Hangal Hobali,
Gundlupet Taluk
Chamarajanagar District -
571126.
Karnataka State Police
Begur Police Station, Begur
Town, Gundlupet Taluk,
Chamarajnagar District -
571109.
(By Sri. Visveswaraiah.L., Adv.,)
Case instituted : 05.01.2024
Offence complained : U/s 138 of N.I Act
of
Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Accused is Convicted
Date of order : 21.07.2025
JUDGMENT
The Complainant has filed this complaint against
the accused under the provisions of Sec.200 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, for the offence punishable
U/Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The case of the Complainant is as under:-
3 CC.No.5988/2024
It is stated that the complainant and accused are
known to each other from very long time. The accuused
is working in police department in the same native.
Accused had approached the complainant in the second
week of March 2023 seeking financial help of
Rs.2,00,000/- for his personal commitments like
agriculture purpoes, polutry form business
improvement. Accordingly, the complainant had paid an
amount of Rs.2,00,000/- by way of account
transfer(throug phone pay) and by way of cash on March
and 7th and 9th April 2023 in presence of common friend
Mahesh and Srikantamurthy Kamarahalli and the
accused had promised to repay the same within 6
months. Towards discharge of liability, the accused had
issued a cheque bearing No.507922 dated 17.11.2023
for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, drawn on State Bank of
India, Hunsur Branch, Bengaluru. The complainant has
presented the cheque for encashment before the Canara
Bank, Gavipuram Extension Branch, Bengaluru. But it
4 CC.No.5988/2024got dishonoured for the reason ‘Exceeds Arrangments’
on 18.11.2023. Therefore, the complainant got issued a
legal notice dated 05.12.2023 calling upon the accused
to pay the cheque amount within 15 days from the date
of service of legal notice. The accused refused to take the
notice and failed to pay the cheques amount, but gave
an evasive reply and thereby committed an offence
punishable U/s.138 of NI Act. Hence, the complainant
has constrained to file this complaint.
3. Learned Predecessor in office having heard the
arguments of learned counsel for complainant and
having satisfied with the complaint averments, sworn
statement of complainant and documents at Ex.P1 to P6
and prima facie materials placed on record has taken
the cognizance for the offence punishable U/s.138 of
N.I.Act.
4. On service of summons, the accused has
appeared before the court through his learned counsel
5 CC.No.5988/2024
and obtained the bail. The copies of all the prosecution
papers were supplied to the accused.
5. The Plea of accused for the offence punishable
U/s.138 of N.I.Act has been recorded vide dated
06.01.2025 and the substance of accusation has been
read over and explained to the accused in the language
known to him. The accused has pleaded not guilty, but
claims to be tried.
6. In order to establish the guilt against the
accused, the complainant got himself examined as PW-1
and got the documents marked as Ex.P.1 to P.6.
7. But, in spite of sufficient opportunites were
given, the accused and his learned counsel continuously
remained absent and did not choose to cross-examine
PW.1 and therefore, the cross-examination of PW.1 was
ordered to be taken as nil and closed.
6 CC.No.5988/2024
8. The statement of accused U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C.
has been recorded on 06.01.2025 and the incriminating
as such forthcoming against the accused in the evidence
of complainant and documents has been read over and
explained to the accused in the language known to
accused and the accused has denied the evidence of the
complainant and documents.
9. It is pertinent to note here that the proceedings
of this nature where the accused are charged for the
offence punishable U/Sec.138 of N.I.Act is a summary in
nature as per Sec.143 of N.I.Act and the provisions of
Sec.262 to 265 of Cr.P.C. are applicable to the trials.
As per Sub Sec.2 and 3 of Sec.143 of N.I.Act, the trial of
a case under this section shall, so far as practicable,
consistently with the interests of justice, be continued
from day to day until its conclusion, unless the court
finds the adjournment of the trial beyond the following
day to be necessary for the reasons to be recorded in
writing and every trial under section 138 of NI Act, shall
7 CC.No.5988/2024
be conducted as expeditiously as possible and an
endeavour shall be made to conclude the trial within 6
months from the date of filing of the complaint.
10. Further, as per the principles laid down and
directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
in a decision reported in (2014) 5 SCC 590 in between
Indian Association Bank V/s Union of India, the chief-
examination, cross-examination and re-examination has
to be conducted on the same day and on day to day
basis untill its conclusion and the entire trial of the
proceedings U/Sec.138 of N.I.Act has to be concluded
with the span of 3 months.
11. But, in the present case, in spite of sufficient
opportunites were given, the accused did not appear
before the court either personally or through his learned
counsel and thereby failed to cross-examine PW.1.
Under these circumstances, in order to comply the
mandates of Sec.143(2)(3) of NI Act and principles laid
8 CC.No.5988/2024
down and direction issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Indian Bank Association V/s Union of
Inida reported in 2014(5) SCC 590, this court had no
option, but to proceed to pass necessary orders on the
available materails on record and acordingly, the cross-
examination of PW.1 was ordered to be taken as nil and
closed and since the proceedings U/sec.138 of NI Act
being summary in nature. The statement of accused
U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded. The defence
evidence is also ordered to be taken as nil and closed.
12. I have heard the arguments of complainant
counsel. The counsel for the accused has not addressed
arguments. I have perused the oral and documentary
evidence placed on record.
13. Now, the points that would arise for my
consideration are as under:-
1. Whether the complainant proves that the
accused has issued cheque bearing No.507922
dated 17.11.2023 for Rs.2,00,000/-, drawn on
9 CC.No.5988/2024State Bank of India, Hunsur Branch, Bangalore
in his favour towards the legally recoverable
debt/laibility of Rs.2,00,000/- and on
presentation of cheque for encashment before
the bank, it was dishonorued for the reason
‘Exceeds Arrangement’ vide bank endorsement
dt:18.11.2023 and inspite of issuance of legal
notice dt:05.12.2023 and in spite of service of
legal notice, the accused has failed to pay the
cheque amount and thereby committed an
offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I.Act?
2. What Order?
14. On considering and assessing the oral and
documentatry evidence placed on record, now my
answers to the above points are as under :
[ Point No.1: In the Affirmative.
Point No.2: As per final order for the following :-
REASONS
15. Point No.1 : It is the case of the complainant
that the accused has borrowed loan of Rs.2 lakhs from
the complainant and towards dishcarge of liability has
issued cheque in question, but it got dishonoured for the
10 CC.No.5988/2024
reason ‘Exceeds Arrangement’. Despite of giving legal
notice, the accused have failed to pay the cheque
amount and therefore, the complainant has presented
the complaint before the Court.
16. The complainant has stepped into witness box
and got examined as PW1 and he has produced the
cheque dated 17.11.2023, bank endorsement dated
18.11.2023, legal notice dated 05.12.2023, postal
receipt, postal cover and Complaint and they are marked
at Ex.P1 to P6.
17. The accused has not seriously disputed either
the issuance of cheque or dishonour of cheque with an
endorsement as ‘Exceeds Arrangement’ or issuance of
legal notice and its service during recording of plea on
06.01.2025. The defense of the accused were as that of
total denial as on recording of plea vide dated
06.01.2025. The accused did not choose to cross-
11 CC.No.5988/2024
examine PW.1. The oral evidence of PW.1 and the
documentary evidence at Ex.P1 to P6 remained
unchallenged by the accused.
18. However, on careful perusal of complaint
averments, oral evidence of PW.1 and the documentary
evidence at Ex.P1 to P6, it clearly establishes that
accused has issued the cheque vide Ex.P1 in favour of
the complainant for repayment of liability, but on
presentation of cheque for encashment before the bank,
the said cheques was dishonoured vide bank
endorsement at Ex.P2.
19. The materials placed on record clearly
establishes that the complainant got issued a legal
notice vide Ex.P3 calling upon the accused to pay the
cheque amount within 15 days from the date of service
of legal notice. But in spite of service of legal notice, the
accused failed to pay the cheque amount and therefore,
12 CC.No.5988/2024
the complainant presented the complaint before the
court on 05.01.2024.
20. It is pertinent to note here that the cheque
vide Ex.P1 and it was dishonoured with an ensorsement
as ‘Exceeds Arrangement’ vide bank endorsement at
Ex.P2. So, it is crystal clear that the complainant has
presented the cheque for encashment before the bank
well within the validity of the cheque and it got
dishonoured.
21. Further, as could be seen from the document at
Ex.P3, the complainant got issued a legal notice dated
05.12.2023 giving 15 days time to the accused to comply
the demands made in the notice, but it was returned.
But, in spite of service of legal notice, the accused has
failed to pay the cheque amount and therefore, the
complainant has presented the complaint before the
court which was well within time.
13 CC.No.5988/2024
22. So, it is crystal clear that the complainant has
complied the mandates of Sec.138 of NI Act by adducing
the oral evidence of PW.1 and also by producing the
documentary evidence at Ex.P1 to P6. Therefore, when
once the complainant has complied the mandates of
Sec.138 of NI Act, then this court has no option, but to
raise and to draw the presumptions in favour of the
complainant under the provisions of Sec.118 and 139 of
NI Act.
23. Admittedly, the presumptions available in
favour of the complainant U/Sec.118 and 139 of NI Act
are not conclusive proof, but they are rebuttable in
nature. Therefore, when once the complainant has
fullfilled the mandates of Sec.138 of NI Act and when
once the court has drawn the presumptions in favour of
the complainant under the provisions of Sec.118 and
139 of NI Act, then the onus shifts of the accused to
rebut the statutory presumptions available in favour of
14 CC.No.5988/2024
the complainant under the provisions of Sec.118 and
139 of NI Act.
24. Now, let us consider as to whether the accused
could able to raise a probable defense and could able to
prove the same before the court with legal evidence and
could able to rebut the statutory presumptions available
in favour of the complainant U/Sec.118 and 139 of NI
Act.
25. At the outset, it is necessary to note here that
while recording the plea of accused on 06.01.2025, the
accused have pleaded not guilty, but claims to be tried.
In other words, it is to be noted here that the defense of
the accused at the time of recording of plea on
06.01.2025 was as that of total denial and there is no
specific defence. The accused has not stated anything
about the cheque. The accused has not stated as to how
and in what manner the cheque passed from his
possession to the hands of the complainant.
15 CC.No.5988/2024
26. However, the accused did not choose to cross-
examine PW.1 in spite of sufficient opportunites were
given. In the absence of cross-examination of PW.1 and
in the absence of defense evidence and in the absence of
any cogent documentary proof and in the absence of any
materials, the defense of the accused as that of total
denial is not sustainable under law and therefore,
cannot be accepted.
27. On appreciation of entire oral and documentary
evidence placed on record, it is found that the accused
has issued the cheque vide Ex.P1 in favour of the
complainant for legally recoverable liability of
Rs.2,00,000/- and on presentation of cheque for
encashment, it was dishonorued vide bank endorsement
at Ex.P2, but in spite of service of legal notice, the
accused has failed to pay the cheque amount.
28. The complainant has established the guilt
against the accused with oral evidence of P.W.1 and the
16 CC.No.5988/2024
documentary evidence at Ex.P1 to P6. The oral evidence
of PW.1 and the documentary evidence at Ex.P1 to P6
remained unchallenged by the accused. Under these
circumstances, there are no reasons to disbelieve or to
discard the oral evidence of P.W.1 and the documentary
evidence at Ex.P1 to P6.
29. Therefore, for the reasons discussed above,
this court is of the considered view that the materials
placed on record clearly establishes the guilt against the
accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of N.I.Act.
Hence, I hold that the complainant has proved the guilt
against the accused for the offence punishable U/s.138
of NI Act. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the
‘Affirmative’.
[ 30. POINT. No.2:- In view of the reasons assigned in
above point, it is ample clear that accused No 1 t0 3 have
committed the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Act. A
bare reading of sec.138 of the NI Act indicates that the
17 CC.No.5988/2024
purport of sec.138 is to prevent and punish the dishonest
drawers of cheques who evade their liability. The Hon’ble
Apex Court in its recent decision in M/s. Meters &
instrument Pvt Ltd. Vs. Kanchana Mehta reported in
(2018)1 SCC-560 held at para 18(ii)
that”(ii) The object of the provision being primarily
compensatory, punitive element being mainly with the
object of enforcing the compensatory element,
compounding at the initial stage has to be encouraged but
is not debarred at later stage subject to appropriate
compensation as may be found.” In view of the reasons
assigned in above point, it is ample clear that accused have
committed the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Act.
31. Therefore, having regard to the amount advanced,
time from which it is lying with the accused, and keeping in
mind the primary object of the provision, this court is of
18 CC.No.5988/2024
the opinion that, rather than imposing punitive sentence, if
sentence of fine is imposed with a direction to compensate
the complainant for its monitory loss, by awarding
compensation U/Sec.357 of Cr.P.C, would meet the ends of
justice. Accordingly, this court proceeds to pass following
ORDER
The accused is found guilty for the
offence punishable U/s.138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act.
Hence, acting U/sec.255(2) of
Cr.P.C, the accused is convicted and
sentenced to pay a fine of
Rs.3,60,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs
Sixty Thousand Only), in default of
fine amount, he shall undergo simple
imprisonment for 6 months under
section 138 of N.I.Act.
Out of the fine amount collected
from the accused, an amount of
Rs.3,55,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs
Fifty Five Thousand only) shall be
paid to the complainant as
compensation U/s.357 of Cr.P.C. and
the remaining fine of Rs.5,000/- shall
19 CC.No.5988/2024
be adjusted towards the cost of state
defraying expenses.
Office to supply the copy of the
Judgement to the accused forthwith at
free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, corrected by me and
then judgment pronounced in the open court on this the 21 st day of July
2025).
Digitally
signed by
Tejaswini
Tejaswini K M
KM Date:
2025.07.22
13:36:44
+0530
(Smt.TEJASWINI K.M)
XVI ACJM, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE
1. List of witness/s examined on behalf of the
Complainant:-
P.W.1 : Chandrashekar
20 CC.No.5988/2024
2. List of documents exhibited on behalf of the
Complainant:-
Ex.P.1 : Original Cheque. Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of the Accused. Ex.P.2 : Bank Memo. Ex.P.3 : Copy of legal notice. Ex.P.4 : Postal Receipt. Ex.P.5 : Postal Cover. Ex.P.6 : Complaint.
3. List of witness/s examined on behalf of the
Accused:-
NIL
4. List of documents exhibited on behalf of the
Accused:-
NIL
Digitally signed
by Tejaswini K
M
Tejaswini Date:
KM 2025.07.22
13:36:51
+0530
(Smt.TEJASWINI K.M)
XVI ACJM, Bengaluru City
21 CC.No.5988/2024
