Bangalore District Court
Sri. Hemanth Kumar R vs Sri. Rajendra M.S on 8 July, 2026
CC.No.35417/2024
KABC030598822024
Presented on : 30-10-2024
Registered on : 30-10-2024
Decided on : 08-07-2026
Duration : 1 years, 8 months, 9 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Dated: This the 8th day of July 2026
Present: Smt.Tejaswini K.M., B.A.L. LL.M,
XVI Addl.C.J.M., Bengaluru City.
CC. No.35417/2024
Sri.Hemanth Kumar.R
S/o Late Ramaiah @ Ramanna
Aged about 39 years
No.70, Doddakallasandra,
Near Old Post Office,
Bengaluru - 560062.
....Complainant
(By Sri R.K., Advocate)
Versus
2 C.C.35417/2024
Sri.Rajendra M.S
S/o Sonnappa.S
Aged about 47 years
R/at No.54, 30th Main Road,
4th Cross, Near Crystal Apartment,
BTM 2nd Stage,
Bengaluru - 560076.
Also at
Office of the information
Hon'ble Chief Minister's Office,
Room No.363, 3rd Floor,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bengaluru - 560001.
.... Accused
(By Sri M.E.R., Advocate)
Offence complained : U/Sec.138 of Negotiable
Instrument Act.
Date of commencement
of evidence : 28.10.2024
Date of closing evidence : 07.08.2025
Opinion of the Judge : Accused found guilty
Offence complained : U/Sec.138 of Negotiable
Instrument Act.
Opinion of the Judge : Accused found guilty
3 C.C.35417/2024
JUDGMENT
This case is registered against the accused for the
offence punishable U/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act.
2. Factual matrix of the complainant’s case is as
under: It is stated that he met the accused through one
Sri. Hemant Kumar, who is from his village, in 2018. The
accused has requested the complainant and his brother
to extend a hand loan of Rs 18,00,000/- for his family
needs and also for business establishment as hand loan in
the year 2018 and also promised to return it within 5
years. Accordingly the complainant and his brother had
given hand loan of Rs 18,00,000/- in cash in the year 2018.
They sourced said amount as their lands were acquired by
BMRCL. After lapse of 5 years when the complainant and
his brother demanded the accused to return the amount,
the accused has issued two cheques for a sum of RS
9,00,000/- each and also executed MOU on 12.05.2023.
3. The cheque bearing No.016957 was drawn in the
name of the complainant, mentioning the date as
4 C.C.35417/2024
01.08.2023 and another cheque bearing No.016962 was
drawn in the name of his brother, namely Sri.Sridhar,
wherein the date was 02.08.2023. As per the instruction of
the accused, the complainant has presented the cheque
given in his name to his banker, but it got dishonour for
the reason ‘funds insufficient’, vide endorsement dated
01.08.2023. Thereafter the complainant has issued a legal
notice. Dated 15.08.2023 calling upon the accused to
make payment of the cheque and it was served on the
accused on 17.08.2023. The accused has given reply to the
legal notice, but failed to repay the cheque amount.
Hence the complainant constrained to file the present
complaint.
4. After receiving the complaint, this court has
meticulously gone through the documents and affidavit
filed along with it and then took cognizance of the offence
punishable U/sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and
ordered for registration of the compliant as P.C.R.
5. Sworn statement of the complainant was
recorded and marked 10 documents as Ex.P-1 to P-10. As
there were sufficient materials to constitute the offence,
5 C.C.35417/2024
this court has proceeded to pass an order for issuing
process against the accused.
6. In pursuance of summons, accused has appeared
through his counsel and applied for bail. He was enlarged
on bail. Then the substance of accusation was read over
to the accused in the language known to him, for which
he pleaded not guilty.
7. As per the direction of Hon’ble supreme court in
“Indian Bank Association V/s Union of India and others
reported in (2014)(5) SCC 590, this court treated the
sworn statement of the complainant as evidence of PW.1
and posted matter for cross-examination of PW.1. In
support of his case, the complainant has examined one
supporting witness by name Sri.L.Sudhakar as PW.2. The
counsel for the accused has cross-examined PW.1 and
PW.2.
8. The statement of accused as contemplated under
the provisions of Section 313 of Cr.P.C has been recorded
vide dated 08.01.2025 & 17.10.2025 and the incriminating
evidence as such forthcoming against the accused in the
evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 and the documents has been
read over and explained to the accused in the language
6 C.C.35417/2024
known to him. He denied all incriminating evidence. The
accused has not led any evidence.
9. I have heard advocate for the complainant and
the accused. Advocate for accused filed written
arguments also. I have perused the oral and the
documentary evidence placed on record.
10. Points that arise for my consideration are as
under:
1. Whether the complainant proves that the
accused towards discharge of his liabilityissued a cheque bearing No.016957
01.08.2023 for Rs.9,00,000/-, drawn on State
Bank of India, Cunningham Road Branch,
Bengaluru in favour of complainant, on
presentation of the same for encashment, it
was dishonored for “funds insufficient” in
the account maintained by the accused,
then in-spite of issuing demand notice to
the Accused and in complying with
statutory requirement under Negotiable
Instrument Act, Accused did not repay the
cheque amount, thereby he has committed
7 C.C.35417/2024an offence punishable U/s 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act?
2. What Order?
11. My Answer to above points are as under:-
Point No.I :- In the Affirmative,
Point No.II :- As per the final order for
the following....
REASONS
12. POINT NO.I:- The defence of the accused is that
there is no legally enforceable debt as alleged in the
complaint. By threatening the accused, the complainant
and his brother have taken the cheques and sign on
stamp paper. The complaint is not maintainable as it is
filed pertaining to a time barred debt, which is alleged to
be given in the year 2018. Hence on these grounds the
accused prays to acquit him from this case.
13. Gist of written arguments filed by the accused
counsel;
Advocate for accused has filed written arguments
wherein it is stated that the complaint has not proved the
existence of legally enforceable debt. No proof is
8 C.C.35417/2024
produced to show that he has paid such huge amount to
the accused. It is further contended that, in view of
Articles 18 and 19 of the Limitation Act, the alleged debt is
barred by limitation and same cannot be termed as
legally enforceable debt, hence the present complaint not
maintainable.
14. He also argued that a common statutory notice
was issued on behalf of both the complainant and his
brother in respect of two different cheques. According to
the defence, such a notice is defective and, on that
ground as well, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It
is further contended that the complainant has admitted
during the course of evidence that he himself filled up the
particulars in the cheque. According to the learned
counsel, such filling up of the cheque amounts to a
material alteration, thereby rendering the cheque invalid
and the complaint not maintainable. On these grounds,
the learned counsel for the accused has prayed for the
acquittal of the accused.
15. Negotiable Instruments Act provides for some
presumption in favour of the complainant i.e., Section 118
reads as here: – “That every negotiable instrument was
9 C.C.35417/2024
made or drawn for consideration and that every such
instrument when it has been accepted, endorsed,
negotiated or transferred was accepted, endorsed,
negotiated or transferred for consideration”.
16. Further Sec 139 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act provides for presumption in favour of a holder. It
reads as here: – “It shall be presumed, unless the contrary
is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the
cheque, of the nature referred to in sec 138, for the
discharge, in whole or in part, or any debt or other
liability.”
17. Combined reading of above said sections raises
a presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque that
he has received the same for discharge in whole or in part
of any debt or other liability. However, it is settled
principle of law that the presumption available u/s 139 NI
Act can be rebutted by the accused by raising a probable
defense.
18. The complainant got examined as PW.1 and he
has reiterated the contents of the complaint in his chief-
examination. In support of his case he has marked Ex.P1
to P10. He has produced the cheque issued by accused
10 C.C.35417/2024
and the same is marked as Ex.P-1, the signature of the
accused is marked as Ex.P-1(a), copy of bank memo is
marked as Ex.P-2, copies of bank challan and
endorsement are marked as Ex.P-2(a) & 2(b), copy of
demand notice dated:15.08.2023 is marked as Ex.P-3,
copies of postal receipts are marked as Ex.P-4 & 5, copies
of postal acknowledgments are marked as Ex.P-6 & 7,
copy of reply notice is marked as Ex.P-8, copy of account
statement is marked as Ex.P-9 and copy of MOU is marked
as Ex.P-10. PW1 has been cross-examined by the counsel
for the accused.
19. The complainant has examined one of the
witnesses to the MOU marked at Ex.P10 as PW2 who has
supported the complainant by stating that in his presence
by taking RS 18,00,000 from the complainant and his
brother, the accused has executed MOU. He identified his
signature on MOU. He has been cross examined by the
counsel for the accused but nothing worth is elicited from
the mouth of PW.2 to suspect his presence while
executing the said MOU by the accused. PW.2 has been
cross-examined by the counsel for accused.
11 C.C.35417/2024
20. On the other hand, the accused has not chosen
to give evidence. It has been held by Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in the judgment titled Rangappa vs. Sri
Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441 that a reverse onus clause
usually imposes an evidentiary burden and not a
persuasive burden and when an accused has to rebut the
presumption under sec 139, the standard of proof for
doing so is that of “preponderance of probabilities”.
Therefore, if the accused is able to raise a probable
defense which creates doubts about the existence of a
legally enforceable debt or liability, the prosecution can
fail. It was further held that the accused can rely on the
materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise
such a defence and it is conceivable that in some cases
the accused may not need to adduce evidence of his/her
own.
21. At the outset, the acquaintance between the
parties is not in dispute. The accused has not disputed his
signature on Ex. P1 cheque. The cheque is dishonored for
the reason ‘funds insufficient’ as per Ex.P2. Indeed the
defence of the accused is that by threatening the
complainant has taken cheque from the accused. The
12 C.C.35417/2024
accused admits that he himself has issued the cheque to
the complainant. Hence it is proved that the cheque
belongs to the account of the accused and it bears his
signature.
22. The Honorable Supreme Court of India in
“Triyambak S Hegde v Sripad” (2022) 1 SCC 742 while
relying upon the the constitution bench judgment of
Basalingappa v Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418, under
para 14 of its judgment reiterated that
“once the cheque was issued and that the
signatures are upon the cheque are accepted by
the accused, the presumptions undee Sec 118
and 139 of the NI Act arise against the accused.
That is, unless the contrary is proved, it shall be
presumed that the cheques in question were
drawn by the accused for a consideration and
that the complainant had received the cheque in
question in discharge of debt/liability from the
accused.”
23. Therefore, as per Sec.118 and 139 of NI Act
initial presumption has to drawn infavour of the
complainant that cheque was issued in discharge of
legally enforceable debt. The burden lies on the accused
13 C.C.35417/2024
to rebut the said initial presumption on the scale of
preponderance of probabilities.
24. The complaint has reiterated his case in his
chief examination as well as deposed in consonance with
his pleadings in the cross-examination. In the cross-
examination PW1 has deposed that through one Mr.
Hemant Kumar he met the accused in 2017. He has given
Rs 9,00,000/- to the accused and his brother has given Rs
9,00,000 to the accused. He specifically deposed that on
15.02.2018 he has given Rs 2,50,000/- to the accused. He
has given Rs 1,00,000/- on 28.04.2018, Rs 1,50,000/- on
19.07.2018, Rs 1,50,000/- on 06.10.2018, Rs 1,50,000/- on
12.12.2018, Rs 1,00,000/- on 24.12.2018 by way of cash to
the accused. PW1 deposed that he has withdrawn money
from his account and given to the accused.
25. Therefore, as per above evidence the
complainant has consistently deposed that he has given
Rs.9,00,000 by way of cash to the accused. In view of
strong legal presumptions given U/Sec.118 and 139 of NI
Act it shall be presumed that the cheque is drawn for
consideration and the cheque is issued in discharge of
14 C.C.35417/2024
legally enforceable debt/liability. In AIR 2023 SC 5018 in
between Rajesh Jain V/s Ajay Singh, Apex court held that
” 31. Presumption, on the other hand, literally means
“taking as true without examination or proof”. In Kumar
Exports v. Sharma Exports, this Court referred to
presumption as “devices by use of which courts are
enabled and entitled to pronounce on an issue
notwithstanding that there is no evidence or insufficient
evidence.”
26. If at all, the accused is disputing the existence of
legally enforceable debt, then the initial burden lies on the
accused to establish his defense on the scale of
preponderance of probabilities and thereby rebut the
initial presumptions given in favour of the complainant.
Nothing worth is allowed from the mouth of PW1 to
suspect the existence of legally enforceable debt.
27. The complainant has produced his account
statement marked at Ex.P9, which shows there is a
sufficient balance in his account between 06.03.2016 to
22.08.2018. The complainant has also produced a MOU
executed by the accused on 12.05.2023 as per Ex.P10. On
perusal of the same, it is evident that the accused has
admitted that he has received Rs.18,00,000 from the
15 C.C.35417/2024
complainant and agreed to repay it within 5 years and has
clearly mentioned that he has issued two cheques in the
name of the complainant and his brother Sri.Sridhar for
Rs 9,00,000/- each. The accused has not disputed his
signature on this Ex.P10.
28. Indeed, the accused has not entered the witness
box to depose regarding the circumstances under which
the cheque was issued or how Ex.P10 came to be
executed in favour of the complainant. A mere suggestion
put to PW1 during cross-examination that the
complainant and his brother, by threatening the accused,
obtained the cheques and the accused’s signature on
stamp paper and subsequently created the documents,
does not, by itself, constitute proof of the defence. Such a
plea, must be established by cogent evidence as per Sec
101 and 102 of Evidence Act. Mere suggestions made
during cross-examination, without supporting evidence,
cannot be treated as proof of the defence. It remains as
mere assertion.
29. It is pertinent to note here that after the cheque
got dishonoured the complainant has issued a legal
notice to the accused, to which the accused has given a
16 C.C.35417/2024
reply as per Ex.P8. On perusal of the same in Para number
2, accused has admitted that in 2018 he was in need of
money to an extent of Rs 18,00,000/-, as such he
approached the complainant who was doing money
lending business and sought a hand loan of Rs18,00,000/-.
This admission of the accused lends support to the case of
the complainant in 2018 the accused was in need of
money and he approached the complainant seeking loan.
30. Further it is stated in same reply that the
complainant has requested to give two cheques of
Rs.9,00,000/- each in the name of the complainant and his
brother for security purpose to give the said loan to him.
But later the accused could arranged the funds from
different sources. As such he has not borrowed any loan
from the complainant or his brother. He requested the
complainant to return the cheques. But he failed to return
them.
31. Therefore in the reply the accused has admitted
that he himself has voluntarily issued two cheques in the
name of the complainant and his brother. Whereas in the
cross examination of PW1 the counsel for the accused has
suggested that by threatening, under the force, he has
17 C.C.35417/2024
taken cheques from the accused, which shows there is an
inconsistency in the stand of the accused. But the reply
shows that he has sought the loan of Rs 18,00,000/- to the
complainant. If as per the accused he had arranged the
funds from different source, then from whom he got such
financial assistance subsequently has to be explained by
the accused. No such explanation is forthcoming from the
mouth of the accused. In absence of proof, such
contention that accused, has not taken loan from the
complainant but taken from different source cannot be
believed.
32. Further even before giving loan amount to him
what made the accused to issue his two cheques
specifically for Rs 9,00,000/- each it is not forthcoming. It
is clearly mentioned in the reply itself that the cheques
were issued by mentioning the amount without
mentioning the date. Therefore, it is evident that the
accused himself has filled the details in the cheque and
signed on it, except the date.
33. In the cross examination PW1 has deposed that
he has mentioned the date in the cheque. In the written
arguments, the counsel for the accused has stated that
18 C.C.35417/2024
since the complainant himself has mentioned the date in
the cheque, it amounts to material alteration. It is
pertinent to note here that if at all the accused has
mentioned the date on the cheque, later the complainant
has corrected the date or any particulars mentioned by
the accused in the cheque, that amounts to material
alteration as per Section 87 of NI Act. Since the accused
himself has clearly admitted in reply notice that without
mentioning the date, he has handed over the cheque to
the complainant, question of ‘material alteration’ in the
cheque doesn’t arise at all. Thus such line of arguments
of the counsel for the accused holds no water. Even
otherwise it is trite position of law that in view of Section
20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it is not necessary
that all the particulars of a cheque should be filled in by
the drawer himself. Once the execution and issuance of
the cheque are admitted, the mere fact that the
remaining particulars were filled in by another person
does not, by itself, invalidate the cheque or absolve the
drawer’s liability.
34. As stated above, the accused has failed to prove
that he has not borrowed Rs.18,00,000 from the
19 C.C.35417/2024
complainant and his brother or he got such amount from
different source. If at all he did not get the loan from the
complainant and his brother, then immediately he ought
to have made efforts to secure back his cheques allegedly
given to the complainant. But such endeovour is not
made from 2018 to 2023 and such imprudent conduct of
the accused makes his defence unreliable.
35. The cheque is dishonored for the reason ‘funds
insufficient’. If the complainant has failed to return back
the cheques, the accused being prudent person ought to
have given ‘stop payment instructions’ to his banker or
issue legal notice to the complainant seeking back his
cheque or take any other legal courses to secure back his
cheques. No such endeavour is made by the accused for
the reasons best known to him and such conduct of the
accused makes it clear that the defence putforth now is an
afterthought and does not transpires the confidence of
the court for lack of evidence.
36. Except denial of the case of the complainant,
nothing worth is elicited from the mouth of PW1. No iota
of evidence is brought on record by the accused to prove
that he has not borrowed money from the complainant or
20 C.C.35417/2024
under the threat his cheques are issued. Indeed , the
accused has taken mutually inconsistent stands regarding
the issuance of the cheques. On the one hand, he
contends that he had issued the cheques in the year 2018
itself when he approached the complainant and his
brother seeking a loan. On the other hand, he contends
that the complainant and his brother obtained the
cheques from him under threat. These contradictory pleas
are inherently inconsistent and materially undermine the
credibility of the defence put forth by the accused.
37. Yet another contention taken by the accused is
that the complaint is not maintainable as it is filed
pertaining to time barred debt. No doubt the loan
transaction took place in the year 2018, whereas the
cheque is issued on 01.08.2023. But in a complaint itself it
is clearly stated that the accused has agreed to repay the
amount after 5 years from 2018. No question has been
asked by the counsel for the accused in this regard. The
accused has not disputed this fact.
38. In Sri D Vijay vs Sri G Jayaprakash on 22
March, 2025, IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION
NO.400/2016, Hon’ble High court of Karantaka held that
21 C.C.35417/2024
” In view of the principles laid down in the judgment
of the Apex Court,judgment of the different High Courts,
including this Court, this Court comes to a conclusion that
Court can invoke Section 138 of N.I. Act in respect of the
liability, even if it is a time barred debt subsequently
through a document recognizing the liability and also
promised to pay the same. Hence, the very contention
raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner in
all the cases regarding no liability cannot be accepted.”
39. In M/S Vijay Polymers Pvt. Ltd. vs M/S Vinnay
Aggarwal162 (2009) DLT 23 , Delhi High court also held
that
“6. The ruling upon which reliance has been
placed by the learned advocate for the respondent is
applicable on all fours. In that case loan was advanced in
the year 1985 and the cheque was issued in the year
1990. By the time the cheque was issued, the debt was
barred by limitation because no acknowledgment was
obtained before the expiry of 3 years from the date of
loan. In these circumstances, it was held there that the
debt was not legally enforceable at the time of issuance
of cheque and the accused could not be punished under
sec 138 of the said Act. In the light of Explanation to the
said section, it was further held therein that in case a
cheque is issued for time barred debt and it is
dishonoured, the accused cannot be convicted under sec
138 on the ground that the said debt was not legally
recoverable.”
22 C.C.35417/2024
40. In Sri Sudhakar Reddy C.B vs Smt Pushpa on
12 October, 2023 CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION
NO.256/2022, Hon’ble High court of Karanataka held that
“39. Thus, when the questions formulated by the learned
Single Judge of High Court of Bombay was referred to the
Division Bench, it took pains in considering the matter
from various facets and answered both the questions in
the Affirmative. Thereby, holding that issuance of cheque
is a promise in writing within the meaning of sub section
(3) of Section 25 of the Contract Act and it is an exception
to the general rule that the agreement without
consideration is void. Thus, issuance of a cheque satisfies
the ingredients of sub section (3) of Section 25, i.e.,
promise made in writing and signed by the person to be
charged therewith to pay wholly or in part a dent of which
the creditor might have enforced payment, but for the law
for the limitation of suits and as such, the cheque
becomes a cheque drawn towards discharge of a legally
enforceable debt as contemplated by the explanation to
Section 138 of the NI Act. Therefore, the position of law is
laid down by the Division Bench of High Court of Bombay
and there is no reason for not accepting the same.
40. In view of the settled position of law, even if the
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the cheques were issued towards a time barred debt is to
be accepted, by applying the above principle of law to the
present case, issuance of cheques in question amount to
written promise to pay the said debt, as provided under
Section 25(3) of the Contract Act and it creates legally
enforceable debt. Hence, it squarely attracts Section 138
of NI Act. ”
23 C.C.35417/2024
41. In K Hymavathi v. State of Andhra Pradesh
and Anr, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1128, the Supreme Court
considered an appeal against the quashing of a
complaint. It ruled that a promissory note executed to
discharge a time-barred debt falls under Section 25(3) of
the Indian Contract Act, 1872, making it a valid and
enforceable agreement.
42. M/S M K Enterprises vs Kumari Varsha Pole on
17 December, 2021 CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.
375/2021, Hon’ble High court of Karnataka held that
“26. Further, the defence that even if the version of the
complainant was to be accepted as on date of
presentation of the cheque, the debt was time barred
does not defeat the rights of the complainant in the
present factual matrix. The complainant has specifically
asserted that the amount that was given to the accused
was with the assurance that profits from the business
would be given.
27. The mere factum of payment stated to have
been made in 2010 would not make it a time barred
debt as on the date of issuance of cheque in 2018. As to
when the debt occurred is a factual inquiry. The nature
of the transaction was that in lieu of the investment
made by the complainant, a hotel would be opened in
the name of father of the complainant and profits from
the business would be paid. Accordingly, when once a
cheque is issued in light of the presumption of
consideration by virtue of Section 139, it could be
24 C.C.35417/2024
construed that a cheque has been issued towards a
debt. As to whether the debt was time barred as on the
date of presentation of cheque is to be proved by the
accused. Even otherwise once a cheque is issued it
could be construed to be a promise made in writing
under Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act and if
read in conjunction with illustration(e), the cheque
could be construed to be valid and its dishonour
actionable under Section 138 of NI Act. Accordingly, the
contention that the cheque is issued as against a time
barred debt and hence, unenforceable debt is liable to
be rejected. ”
43. All the case laws aforementioned have clearly
held that if debt was time barred, it does not defeat the
rights of the complainant. Issuance of cheques itself
revives the limitation and the liability. Therefore, the
contention of the counsel for the accused that the
complaint is barred by law of limitation holds no water.
44. In so far as arguemnt of the accused that a
common statutory notice was issued on behalf of both the
complainant and his brother in respect of two different
cheques and same amounts defective notice is concerned,
it is worth mentioning here that the purpose of giving
legal notice before filing the complaint is to provide an
opportunity to the honest drawers of the cheque to pay
25 C.C.35417/2024the cheques amount if for any other reason they could
not pay it within time.
45. In the legal notice at ExP3, there is reference
about two cheques issued by the accused in favour of the
complainant and his brother. But in the prayer column,
the complainant has requested to make payment of the
disputed cheque alone to the accused.
46. There is no specific format in which the
complainant has to issue a legal notice. But it is mandate
of law that once the cheque is dishonoured, the
complainant has to give a legal notice, calling upon the
accused to make payment of the cheque, within 15 days
from the date of service of notice. The said procedural
compliance is with the good intention to provide one
more opportunity to the accused to make payment before
complainant take the legal action based on the
dishonoured cheque. Since there is reference of two
cheques issued by the accused, in the legal notice and
separate complaints are filed based on single cheque, it is
not serious ground as it does not goes to the root of the
case of the complainant and based on said hyper
technical ground, accused cannot be exonerated from his
26 C.C.35417/2024liability. In deed in the present case, accused has even
given a common reply to said notice.
47. In the instant case, the complainant has clearly
pleaded the cheque amount both in the statutory legal
notice and in the complaint. Disputed Cheque amount
and amount sought in legal notice is identical. But there
is no bar to mention about other cheques issued by the
same accused pertaining to same transaction. Had
complainant sought excess amount than disputed cheque
amount, then it would have been different situation.
Under such circumstances, this court holds that no flaw
can be found in mentioning both cheques issued in favour
of the complainant and his brother in a legal notice. Thus
the complainant has proved his case beyond reasonable
doubts. Accordingly court proceed to answer POINT
NO.I IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
48. POINT NO.II:- In view of the reasons assigned in
above point, it is ample clear that accused has committed
the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Act. A bare reading
of sec.138 of the NI Act indicates that the purport of
sec.138 is to prevent and punish the dishonest drawers of
cheques who evade their liability. The Hon’ble Apex Court
27 C.C.35417/2024in 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.”
49. In R. Vijayan vs. Baby and Another reported
in AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 528, Apex court held that
‘that unless there were special circumstances, in all
cases of conviction, the Court should uniformly exercise the
power to levy fine up to twice the cheque amount and
keeping in view the cheque amount and the simple interest
thereon at 9% per annum as the reasonable quantum of
loss, direct payment of such amount as compensation. This
Court rightly observed that uniformity and consistency in
deciding similar cases by different courts not only increases
the credibility of the cheque as a Negotiable Instrument but
also the credibility of the Courts of Justice’.
50. M/S Kalamani Tex vs P. Balasubramanian
reported in AIRONLINE 2021 SC 82, Apex court
reaffirmed aforementioned principle and held that
“20. As regard to the claim of compensation raised
on behalf of the respondent, we are conscious of the
settled principles that the object of Chapter XVII of the
NIA is not only punitive but also compensatory and
28 C.C.35417/2024
restitutive. The provisions of NIA envision a single window
for criminal liability for dishonour of cheque as well as civil
liability for realisation of the cheque amount. It is also well
settled that there needs to be a consistent approach
towards awarding compensation and unless there exist
special circumstances, the Courts should uniformly levy
fine up to twice the cheque amount along with simple
interest at the rate of 9% per annum.”
51. Therefore, keeping in mind about above
principles, 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
the opinion that, rather than imposing punitive sentence,
fine of Rs.13,60,000/- is imposed with a direction to
compensate the complainant for his monitory loss, by
awarding compensation U/Sec.357 of Cr.P.C, it 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.
29 C.C.35417/2024
Hence, acting U/sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C, the
accused is convicted and sentenced to pay a fine
of Rs.13,60,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Sixty
Thousand Only). In default of payment fine
amount, he shall undergo simple imprisonment
for 6 months for the offence punishable under
section 138 of N.I.Act.
Out of the fine amount collected from the
accused, an amount of Rs.13,50,000/- (Rupees
Thirteen Lakhs Fifty Thousand only shall be
paid to the complainant as compensation
U/s.357 of Cr.P.C. and the remaining fine of
Rs.10,000/- shall be adjusted towards the cost of
state expenses.
The bail bonds of the accused shall be in
force till the appeal period is over as
contemplated under the provisions of
Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C.
30 C.C.35417/2024
Office to supply the copy of the
Judgment 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 8 th day of July
2026).
Digitally signed by TEJASWINI KM TEJASWINI Date: KM 2026.07.14 15:56:17 +0530 (Smt.Tejaswini K.M), XVI ACJM, Bengaluru ANNEXURE
I. List of witnesses on behalf of complainant:
P.W.1: Sri.Hemanth Kumar.R
P.W.2: Sri.L.Sudhakar
II. List of documents on behalf of complainant:
Ex.P-1 : Original Cheque.
Ex.P-1(a) : Signature of the accused.
Ex.P-2 : Bank memo.
Ex.P-2(a) & 2(b) : Bank Challan and Endorsement.
Ex.P- 3 : Copy of Legal notice.
Ex.P- 4 & 5 : Postal Receipts.
31 C.C.35417/2024Ex.P-6 & 7: Postal Acknowledgments.
Ex.P-8 : Copy of Reply Notice.
Ex.P-9 : Copy of Account Statement.
Ex.P-11 : Copy of MOU.
III. List of witnesses for the accused:
Nil
IV. List of documents for accused:
Nil
Digitally signed
by TEJASWINI
KM
TEJASWINI
Date:
KM 2026.07.14
15:56:23
+0530
(Smt.Tejaswini K.M),
XVI ACJM, Bengaluru
32 C.C.35417/2024
