Bangalore District Court
Vasantha vs Lalitha.J on 16 April, 2026
SCCH-2 1 C.C.No. 6175/2019
KABC020282912019
IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES AND ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY (SCCH-2).
C.C.No. 6175/2019
:: PRESENT ::
Sri. H.P. Mohan Kumar, B.Sc.,LL.B.,
6th Addl. Judge, Court of Small
Causes and ACJM, Bengaluru.
Dated: On this the 16th day of April, 2026.
Complainant : Smt. Vasantha,
W/o Sri. Dhananjaya,
Aged about 37 years,
R/at Old No.4, New No.10,
5th Main Road, Gavipura,
K.G. Nagara,
Bengaluru-560018.
(By Sri. E. S. Nanjundappa , Advocate)
- Vs. -
Accused Smt. Lalitha. J
W/o Sri.P.R.Shivakumar
SCCH-2 2 C.C.No. 6175/2019
Aged about 42 years,
R/at No. 949/A, 6th Cross,
11th Main Road,
Srinivasa Nagara,
Bengaluru-560050.
(By Sri. kumar , Advocate)
:: J U D G M E N T :
:
The complainant has filed the present complaint
U/Sec.200 of Cr.P.C., alleging that the accused has
committed the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act (herein after referred as N.I.Act).
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows:-
The complainant and accused were known to each other
from four years and were friends. Due to the said
acquaintance, during the 1st week of April 2019 the accused
had approached the complainant for a hand loan of
Rs.10,00,000/- which is required to clear the family
problems and agreed to return the same within six months.
As per the request of the accused, the complainant has
arranged a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- and paid the same to the
accused on 13.04.2019 by way of cash, for which the
accused has executed a hand loan agreement on 13.04.2019
in favour of the complainant and on the same day itself, the
accused has issued cheque bearing No. 496477 dated
SCCH-2 3 C.C.No. 6175/201904.10.2019 for a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- drawn on
Hanumanthanagara Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Hanumanthanagara
branch, Bengaluru for security purpose. After the lapse of
stipulated time, when the complainant demanded to repay
the hand loan amount, accused postponed the repayment
and instructed the complainant to present the cheque for
encashment.
As per the instructions of the accused, the complainant
has presented the cheque for encashment on 04.10.2019
through her banker Bengaluru City Co-Op. Bank Ltd.,
Avalahalli branch, Bangalore. However, the said cheque got
bounced with shara as “Funds Insufficient” on 05.10.2019.
Thereafter, the complainant has issued the legal notice to
the accused on 19.10.2019 and the same was duly served on
the accused. For which the accused has given untenable
reply on 02.11.2019. Hence, cause of action arose to file
the complaint.
3. The cognizance was taken for the offence punishable
U/Sec.138 of N.I.Act. After filing of the complaint, the sworn
statement of complainant was recorded and it prima-facie
found that the accused has committed the offence
punishable U/Sec.138 of N.I.Act. Hence, criminal case was
registered and the summons was issued to the accused.
SCCH-2 4 C.C.No. 6175/2019
4. In response to the summons, the accused appeared
through her counsel and thereafter plea was recorded. The
accused was denied the accusation leveled against her.
Further, the statement of the accused as contemplated
U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded. The accused has denied
the incriminating evidence appeared against her in the
evidence of complainant and submitted that she has defence
evidence.
5. The Hon’ble Apex Court of India in Indian Bank
Association and Others vs Union Bank of India and
Another reported in AIR 2014 SC 2528, held that “Sworn
Statement of the complainant has to be treated as
examination in chief”. In the instant case, the complainant
examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at
Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9. P.W.1 was subject to the process of cross-
examination from the side of accused. Per contra, the
accused examined herself as DW.1 but she has not produced
any documents.
6. Heard arguments from both sides. Perused the
materials available on record.
7. Now the points that arise for consideration of this
Court are as hereunder:
SCCH-2 5 C.C.No. 6175/2019
1. Whether the complainant has
proved that the accused has
committed the offence punishable
U/Sec.138 of N.I.Act?
2. What Order ?
8. The findings of this Court to the above-referred points
are as follows:
Point No.1: In the Negative.
Point No.2: As per final order,
for the following:-
REASONS
9. POINT No.1: In order to prove the case, the
complainant examined herself as P.W.1 by filing affidavit in
support of her oral examination-in-chief. In the affidavit
P.W.1 has reiterated the complaint averments in verbatim.
Hence, this Court need not to recapitulate the same once
again at this juncture. In support of her oral testimony,
P.W.1 has marked documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.9. Per contra
the accused examined herself as DW.1.
10. Now itself it is appropriate to see the documents
marked at Ex.P-Series.
SCCH-2 6 C.C.No. 6175/2019
Ex.P-Series
Ex.P.1 is the cheque in question. Ex.P.1(a) is the signature
of accused. Ex.P.2 is the bank endorsement. Ex.P.3 is the
office copy of the legal notice dated: 19.10.2019. Ex.P.3(a) is
the RPAD receipt. Ex.P.4 is the reply notice. Ex.P.5 is the
hand loan agreement. Ex.P.6 is the notarized copy of
registered Release Deed. Ex.P.7 is the notarized copy of
order sheet pertaining to O.S. No. 85/2022 filed before Prl.
Civil Judge & JMFC, Kunigal. Ex.P.8 is the notarized copy
of plaint pertaining to O.S. No. 85/2022 filed before Prl. Civil
Judge & JMFC, Kunigal and Ex.P.9 is the notarized copy of
memo filed in O.S No. 85/2022.
11. Before going to discuss the main aspect, it is worth to
reproduce the provisions of Sec.138 and 139 of N.I.Act, the
same as hereunder:
138. Dishonour of cheque for
insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account: –
Where any cheque drawn by a person on
an account maintained by him with a
banker for payment of any amount of
money to another person from out of that
account for the discharge, in whole or in
part, of any debt or other liability, is
returned by the bank unpaid, either
SCCH-2 7 C.C.No. 6175/2019because of the amount of money standing
to the credit of that account is
insufficient to honour the cheque or that
it exceeds the amount arranged to be
paid from that account by an agreement
made with that bank, such person shall
be deemed to have committed an offence
and shall, without prejudice to any other
provisions of this Act, be punished with
imprisonment for (a term which may be
extended to two years), or with fine
which may extend to twice the amount of
the cheque, or with both:
Provided that nothing contained in this
section shall apply unless-
(a) the cheque has been presented to the
bank within a period of Six months from
the date on which it is drawn or within
the period of its validity, whichever is
earlier; (The period of 6 months has been
reduced to 3 months, vide R.B.I.
notification No.RBI/2011-
12/251,DBOD.AMLBC
No.47/14.01.001/2011-12, dated:4th
November 2011 (w.e.f. 01.04.2012))
SCCH-2 8 C.C.No. 6175/2019
(b) the payee or the holder in due course
of the cheque, as the case may be, makes
a demand for the payment of the said
amount of money by giving a notice in
writing, to the drawer of the cheque,
within thirty days of the receipt of
information by him from the bank
regarding the return of the cheque as
unpaid; and
(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to
make the payment of the said amount of
money to the payee or, as the case may
be, to the holder in due course of the
cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt
of the said notice.
Explanation: – For the purposes of the
section, “debt or other liability” means a
legally enforceable debt or other liability.
139. Presumption in favour of holder:- It
shall 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.
SCCH-2 9 C.C.No. 6175/2019
12. The learned counsel for complainant has relied on the
following decisions:
i) AIR 2025 S.C. 1931 between Ashok
Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
another.
ii) (2022) 6 SCC 735 between Tedhi
Singh Vs. Narayan Dass Mahant.
iii) (2019) 18 SCC 106 between
Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel Vs. State of
Gujarat and another.
iv) AIR 2023 SC 5018 between Rajesh
Jain Vs. Ajay singh.
v) Criminal Appeal Nos. 849-850/2011
between Triyambak S Hegde Vs. Sripad.
13. The learned counsel for accused has relied on the
decision of (2023) 1 SCC 578 between Dashrathabhai
Trikambhai Patel Vs. Hitesh Mahendra Bahi Patel. This
court has carefully gone through the decisions relied by both
the counsels and applied the principles to the case on hand.
14. At this juncture it is worth to refer the decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2010 S.C. 1898,
SCCH-2 10 C.C.No. 6175/2019
between Rangappa V/s Mohan wherein their lordships have
observed at para 26 as hereunder:
“No doubt that there is an initial
presumption which favours the
complainant”.
15. It is germane to note that the proceedings U/Sec.138
of N.I. Act is an exception to the general principle that the
accused is presumed to be innocent until the charge leveled
against him is proved beyond reasonable doubt. In the
proceedings initiated U/Sec.138 of the N.I. Act proof of
beyond reasonable doubt is subject to the presumption
envisaged under Sec.139 of the N.I. Act. Once the
requirement of Sec.138 of the N.I. Act is fulfilled, then it has
to be presumed that the cheque was issued in discharge of
legally recoverable debt or liability. The presumption
envisaged under Sec.139 of N.I. Act is mandatory
presumption and it has to be raised in every cheque bounce
cases.
16. Now this court has to see whether the complainant
has complied the ingredients of Sec.138 of N.I. Act or not? In
this connection, Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4, Ex.P3(a) are relevant.
Ex.P.1 is the cheque bearing No.496477 dated: 04.10.2019.
Ex.P.2 is the bank endorsement dated: 05.10.2019. Ex.P.3 is
SCCH-2 11 C.C.No. 6175/2019
the office copy of legal notice dated:19.10.2019. Ex.P.3(a) is
the RPAD receipt. Ex.P.4 is the reply notice.
17. On careful perusal of Ex.P.1 coupled with Ex.P.2, it
appears to this court that, the complainant has presented
the cheque for encashment on 04.10.2019 and same was got
bounced on 05.10.2019. Therefore, it is crystal clear that,
the complainant has presented the cheque for encashment
within stipulated period.
18. Now, the next question before this court is whether
the complainant has issued the notice in accordance with
law or not? As per Ex.P.3, on 19.10.2019, the complainant
has issued the legal notice to the accused. As per Ex.P.3(a),
the complainant has dispatched the said notice on
19.10.2019 itself. On careful examination of Ex.P.3,
Ex.P.3(a), it is crystal clear that, the complainant has issued
the legal notice within 30 days from the date of receipt of
bank endorsement.
19. Now, the next question before this court is whether
the legal notice issued by the complainant was served on the
accused or not?. In this connection, it is appropriate to take
Ex.P.4. Ex,P4 is the reply issued by the accused through her
counsel on 02.11.2019. As such it is manifestly clear that
the complainant has issued the legal notice to the correct
SCCH-2 12 C.C.No. 6175/2019
address of the accused and same has been duly served on
the accused.
20. Now, the next aspect is whether Ex.P.1 is pertaining
to the bank account of accused and Ex.P.1(a) is the signature
of accused or not? In this connection, it is appropriate to
take Ex.P.4. Ex.P.4 is the reply issued by the accused
through her counsel to the complainant on 02.11.2019. A
meticulous reading of the reply notice, the accused side has
put forth the defence. As per the contents of the reply notice,
the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- from the
sister of the complainant. She has collected blank papers as
well as cheques from the accused. After repayment of
Rs.4,00,000/- together with interest, the accused requested
the sister of the complainant to return the blank cheques
and blank stamp papers. However the sister of complainant
did not return the same. The above referred contents clearly
goes to show that Ex.P1 is pertaining to the bank account of
accused and Ex.P.1(a) is her signature.
21. That apart, the accused examined herself as DW.1.
During the course of cross-examination of DW.1, she has
clearly admitted her signature found in Ex.P1. Besides the
above referred aspects the accused in her examination in
chief, she has deposed that, she had given two signed blank
cheques and two blank papers to Poornima. As such, it can
be inferred that Ex.P1 is pertaining to the bank account of
SCCH-2 13 C.C.No. 6175/2019
accused and Ex.P.1(a) is her signature. It is needless to
mention that, the presumption under Sec.118 and 139 of
Negotiable Instruments Act favours the complainant. Hence,
the complainant has complied the ingredients of Sec.138 of
N.I. Act.
22. Now, it is worth to refer the decision of the Hon’ble
Apex Court between Hiten P Dalal V/s Brathindranath
Manarji reported in 2001(6) SCC 16, wherein the Hon’ble
Apex Court observed that, “under Sec.138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act, the complainant is not required to
establish either the legality or enforceability of the debt
or liability since he can avail the benefit of presumption
U/Sec.118 and Sec.139 of N.I. Act in his favour”.
23. It is also settled position of law that, the presumption
available U/Sec. 138 of N.I Act is a rebuttable presumption.
Further, to rebut the said presumption the accused need not
to enter into the witness box. However, the accused can
establish his probable defence by creating a doubt about the
existence of legally enforceable debt or liability.
24. Further, it is also settled position of law that, the
standard of proof of rebutting the presumption is that of
preponderance of probabilities. It is also settled position of
law that, if the accused succeeded in rebutting the
presumption then the burden shifts back to the complainant.
SCCH-2 14 C.C.No. 6175/2019
At this juncture, again it is worth to refer the decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2010 S.C. 1898,
between Rangappa Vs. Sri. Mohan, wherein the Hon’ble
Apex Court has observed that, “the standard of proof to
rebut the presumption is that one of preponderance of
probabilities”.
25. It is also settled position of law that, “it is
immaterial that, the cheque may have been filled in by
any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly
signed by the drawer. If the cheque otherwise valid,
within the provisions of Sec.138 would be attracted”.
26. Now, the question before this court is whether the
accused has rebutted the presumption or not?. The case of
the complainant is that, during the 1st week of April 2019 the
accused had approached the complainant for a hand loan of
Rs.10,00,000/- and agreed to return the same within six
months. As per the request of the accused, the complainant
has arranged a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- and paid the same to
the accused on 13.04.2019 by way of cash. Towards the
discharge of the said liability, the accused has issued the
cheque in question and also executed hand loan agreement
in favour of the complainant.
SCCH-2 15 C.C.No. 6175/2019
27. In the instant case the accused has issued reply
notice. The said reply notice has been marked as Ex.P4.
The contents of the reply notice clearly give an indication
that the accused has disputed the alleged loan transaction
by and between the complainant and accused. Further, it
can be inferred that the specific defence of the accused is
that the accused has borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- from
the sister of the complainant. She had repaid the same
through cheque bearing No.337604 dated 20.12.2018 drawn
on Karnataka Bank, Srinagara branch. At the time of
lending Rs.4,00,000/-, the sister of complainant had
collected signed blank cheques and cleverly misused the
same. Therefore, after cogitating the reply notice, cross-
examination of PW.1 and defence evidence, it would be
gathered that the accused side has disputed the alleged loan
transaction, financial capacity of the complainant to lend
Rs.8,00,000/- and also disputed the issuance of cheque
towards discharge of liability.
28. With these backdrop this court has to analyze the
case on hand. According to the complainant she has lent
Rs.8,00,000/- in cash to the accused on 13.04.2019. Further
according to the complainant, the accused has executed
hand loan agreement. Now, the first and foremost aspect is
whether there was an alleged loan transaction and
SCCH-2 16 C.C.No. 6175/2019
complainant had financial capacity to lend Rs.8,00,000/- or
not?.
29. During the course of cross-examination of PW.1, she
has clearly admitted that she has two daughters, out of two
daughters first one has been studying fashion designing and
2nd one is studying at 5th standard. Further she has
admitted that during the year 2018-2019, the 2nd daughter
was studying under RTE scheme. She also admitted that
under RTE scheme the education was free. Further, she
admitted that, the said scheme is for the benefit of the people
who are financially backward. Further, she has admitted
that, she had given income certificate by stating that their
income was less during the year 2017 to 2019. Further, she
has admitted that her husband was an auto driver. Further,
she has stated that she had received Rs.45,00,000/- from
the alienation of her ancestral property. Further she has
deposed that her brother had given her share. Further, she
has stated that, there was a misunderstanding by and
between herself and her brother, hence she could not
examine her brother.
30. Further, she has stated that she has lent
Rs.8,00,000/- to the accused in the presence of her uncle .
Further, she has stated that during the year 2013, she had
received Rs.40,00,000/-. Further, she has stated that
during the year 2014 she has purchased the site. Further,
SCCH-2 17 C.C.No. 6175/2019
she has stated that she has utilized her entire share for the
purpose of purchasing site, gold and also deposed that she
had given Rs.8,00,000/- to her uncle. Further, she has
admitted that she can examine her uncle and also admitted
that she can produce her bank statement.
31. The cross-examination of PW.1 clearly shows that the
complainant had taken her share in the year 2013. Apart
from that by utilizing the said amount, she had purchased
site as well as golden ornaments. As per the deposition of
PW.1, it appears to this court she has also given certain
amount to her uncle. In order to substantiate the same she
has not examined her uncle. The non examination of her
uncle is fatal to the case of complainant.
32. That apart, as per the complaint averments, the
accused has approached her for financial assistance during
1st week of April 2019. However, during the course of cross-
examination of PW.1, she has deposed that during January
2019, the accused has approached her for financial
assistance. The averments regarding approach of the
accused for financial assistance during 1st week of April 2019
is not correct. At this juncture, it is worth to reproduce the
cross-examination of PW.1 here itself for better
understanding: “ನನ್ನ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಪ್ರಮಾಣ ಪತ್ರದಲ್ಲಿ ಆರೋಪಿಯು ಮೊದಲನೇ ವಾರ
ಏಪ್ರಿಲ್ 2019 ರಂದು ಬಂದು ಸಾಲ ಕೇಳಿದ್ದಾ ರೆಂದು ಬರೆಸಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಅದು ಸರಿ ಇದೆಯಾ ಎಂದರೆ
SCCH-2 18 C.C.No. 6175/2019
ಅದು ತಪ್ಪು ಇದೆ. ಹಾಗಾದರೆ ಮೊದಲನೇ ವಾರ ಏಪ್ರಿಲ್ 2019 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಬಂದು ಸಾಲ
ಕೇಳಿದ್ದಾ ರೆಂದು ಹೇಳಿರುವುದು ತಪ್ಪು ಇದೆಯಾ ಎಂದರೆ ತಪ್ಪು ಇದೆ, ಅವರು ಜನವರಿ 2019 ರಲ್ಲಿ
ಬಂದು ಸಾಲ ಕೇಳಿದ್ದಾ ರೆ”. Therefore, there is a clear contradictions
between the deposition of PW.1 and also complaint
averments with regard to alleged approach of accused for
financial assistance. The said contradictions are certainly
fatal to the case of complainant and also creates a shadow of
doubt about the alleged lending of Rs.8,00,000/-.
33. Apart from the above referred aspects, the accused
side has disputed the financial capacity of the complainant
to lend alleged amount of Rs.8,00,000/-. Admittedly,
according to the complainant she has lent Rs.8,00,000/- to
the accused in cash. According to the complainant she had
received her share from her brother. She had utilized certain
amount towards purchase of site and gold. Further,
Rs.8,00,000/- was given to her uncle. During the course of
cross-examination of PW.1, she has deposed that she can
examine her uncle. However, the complainant has not made
any endevour to examine her uncle. The non examination of
her uncle creates a doubt about the mobilization of alleged
Rs.8,00,000/- and the same is fatal to the case of
complainant. This aspect creates a shadow of doubt about
the alleged loan transaction.
SCCH-2 19 C.C.No. 6175/2019
34. That apart, after cogitating the entire cross-
examination of PW.1, it can be inferred that the accused side
has taken a contention that the complainant had no
financial capacity. Admittedly, either in the notice or in the
complaint, the complainant has not stated anything about
the accumulation of amount. However, during the course of
cross-examination of PW.1, she has deposed that she had
mobilized money from her uncle. It is settled position of law
that, initially the complainant need not to prove the financial
capacity. However, if the accused side has disputed the
financial capacity, under such circumstances it is an
incumbent on the part of the complainant to prove her
financial capacity.
35. Now, at this juncture, it is worth to rely on the
decision of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2020) 12 SCC
724 between APS Forex Services Pvt., Ltd., Vs. Shakti
International Fashion Linkers and Ors., wherein the
Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows:
“We are of the view that whenever
the accused has questioned the
financial capacity of the complainant
in support of his probable defence,
despite the presumption under
Section 139 of the N.I. Act about the
presumption of legally enforceable
debt and such presumption is
rebuttable, thereafter the onus shifts
SCCH-2 20 C.C.No. 6175/2019again on the complainant to prove his
financial capacity and at that stage
the complainant is required to lead
the evidence to prove his financial
capacity, more particularly when it is
a case of giving loan by cash and
thereafter issuance of a cheque.”
36. At the cost of repetition, the accused has denied the
financial capacity of the complainant. It is settled position of
law that initially the complainant need not to prove the
financial capacity. However, if the accused has disputed the
financial capacity, under such circumstances it is an
obligatory on the part of the complainant to prove her
financial capacity. At this juncture, it is worth to rely on the
decision of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2019) 5 SCC 418
between Basalingappa vs. Mudibasappa, wherein the
Hon’ble Apex Court held that, “the accused can always
show that the complainant had no financial capacity to
advance the alleged loan and the same shall be a
probable defence which the accused can raise”. Further,
it is absolutely necessary to rely on the judgment of Hon’ble
Kerala High Court reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 1750
between Sunitha Vs. Sheela Antony, wherein, the
principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
in the above mentioned judgments have been summarized
and it has been held as follows:
SCCH-2 21 C.C.No. 6175/2019
“The complainant has no
obligation, in all cases under
Section 138 of the Act, to prove his
financial capacity. But, when the
case of the complainant is that he
lent money to the accused by cash
and that the accused issued the
cheque in discharge of the liability,
and if the accused challenge the
financial capacity of the
complainant to advance the money,
despite the presumption under
Section 139 of the Act, the
complainant has the obligation to
prove his financial capacity or the
source of the money allegedly lent
by him to the accused. The
complainant has no initial burden to
prove his financial capacity or the
source of the money. The obligation
in that regard would arise only
when his capacity or capability to
advance the money is challenged by
the accused.”
37. Again at the cost of repetition, the presumption
favours the complainant. However, the accused has raised
probable defence with respect to transaction and financial
capacity. Further, at the cost of repetition, complainant
herein has failed to establish that, she has lent a sum of
Rs.8,00,000/- to the accused after mobilizing the amount
from her uncle. She also failed to establish her financial
SCCH-2 22 C.C.No. 6175/2019
capacity to lend an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- to the accused
in cash. This aspect is really fatal to the case of the
complainant and also failed to inspire the confidence of this
Court. Further, it creates a doubt regarding alleged loan
transaction by and between the complainant and accused.
38. It is crystal clear that when once the accused has
disputed the financial capacity of the complainant, it is her
bounden duty to prove the financial capacity to the extent of
the amount paid to the accused. In this connection, it is
appropriate to rely on the decision of the Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka reported in 2012 (3) KCCR 2057, it is
held that,
“No proof as to other source of
income from land, no evidence that
he had a bank balance of
Rs.2,00,000/- on the day he has
alleged to have advanced the loan.
Mere issuance of cheque is no
sufficient unless it is shown that
cheque was issued towards
discharge of a legally recoverable
debt. When the financial capacity
of the complaint is questioned, the
complainant has to establish his
financial capacity”.
39. With the help of discussions referred to above, it is
crystal clear that, complainant has utterly failed to prove the
SCCH-2 23 C.C.No. 6175/2019
alleged loan transaction and also financial capacity to lent
Rs.8,00,000/- to accused as a hand loan. The non
production of the documents to show the financial capacity
of the complainant and also non examination of her uncle
clearly creates a serious doubt regarding the advancement of
loan amount. If really she had paid an amount of
Rs.8,00,000/- to the accused, certainly she would produce
documents to substantiate her financial capacity and she
would examine her uncle. The non-production of the
documents and non examination of uncle of the complainant
is fatal to the case of the complainant and also creates a
serious doubt in the mind of the Court regarding alleged loan
transaction. Apart from that, the contradictions regarding
approaching of accused for financial assistance is also fatal
to the case of complainant and also creates a shadow of
doubt. Thus, the presumption formed in favor of the
complainant stands successfully rebutted.
40. On evaluation of the entire evidence, this Court finds
that, the evidence adduced by P.W.1 is improbable and
difficult to believe. As such, the evidence of P.W.1 is failed to
inspire the confidence of this Court. The documentary
evidence produced by the P.W.1 is not sufficient to hold that,
there was an alleged transaction and the complainant had
financial capacity to lend Rs.8,00,000/- to the accused.
Therefore, from the available materials on record, it appears
SCCH-2 24 C.C.No. 6175/2019
to this court that, it is a case of mis using of cheque. As such
Ex.P5 will not come to the aid of the complainant.
41. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the accused has
raised the probable doubt regarding the advancement of loan
by the complainant. Hence, this court holds that, the
accused has raised plausible defence and successfully
rebutted the presumption available in favour of the
complainant in the present case.
42. It is pertinent to note that, once the accused has
rebutted the presumption, the burden shifts back to the
complainant. However, the complainant has failed to prove
her case. Hence, this court holds that, the complainant has
failed to prove that, the accused has committed an offence
punishable Under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Accordingly, this Court is answered Point No.1 in the
Negative.
43. Point No 2 : In view of the above findings, this Court
proceeds to pass following:
:O R D E R:
Acting U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C., the
accused is acquitted for the offence
SCCH-2 25 C.C.No. 6175/2019punishable under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
The bail bond of the accused shall
stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by her,
revised and corrected by me, and then pronounced in the open
Court on this the 16th April, 2026)(H.P. Mohan Kumar)
VI Addl. Judge and ACJM.,
Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.
:ANNEXURE:
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE COMPLAINANT:
P.W.1 : Smt. Vasantha.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P.1 : Original Cheque No.496477, dated: 04.10.2019
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of the accused.
Ex.P.2 : Bank endorsement.
Ex.P.3 : Office copy of legal notice dated:19.10.2019.
Ex.P.3(a) : Postal receipt.
Ex.P.4 : Reply notice dated 02.11.2019.
Ex.P.5 : Hand loan agreement.
SCCH-2 26 C.C.No. 6175/2019
Ex.P.6 : Copy of Registered Release Deed.
Ex.P.7 : Copy of Order sheet pertaining to O.S. No.
85/2022 filed before Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC,
Kunigal.
Ex.P.8 : Copy of plaint pertaining to O.S. No. 85/2022
filed before Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Kunigal
Ex.P.9 : Memo pertaining to O.S No. 85/2022.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE ACCUSED:
DW.1 : Smt. Lalitha.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED:
– Nil –
Digitally signed by H
HP P MOHANKUMAR
MOHANKUMAR Date: 2026.04.21
16:55:10 +0530
(H.P. Mohan Kumar)
VI Addl. Judge and ACJM.,
Court of Small Causes,
Bengaluru.