Bangalore District Court
Yashodha vs Mani on 9 April, 2026
KABC030136372022
IN THE COURT OF XX ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU CITY
PRESENT: BHOLA PANDIT,
B.Com.,LL.M.,
XX ADDL. C.J.M.
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 9h day of April 2026
C.C.No. 4089 / 2022
Complainant : Smt. Yashodha
W/o. Sri, Huchaeegowda K.V.
Aged about 50 years,
Residing at 1014, 6th Cross,
4th Main, Rajagopalanagar,
Bangalore - 560 058
{ By Sri.Ramesh V L- Advocate }
Vs.
Accused : Smt. Mani,
W/o. Sri B Doreswamy,
Aged about 28 years,
Residing at No. 136/7, 1st Cross,
2 C.C. No.4089 / 2022
Chamundeshwari Nagar,
Laggere,
Bangalore - 560 058
Also at :
Resident of Malati Village,
Krishnaraja Sagar Taluk
Mysore District - 571 602
{ By Sri.A Chethan - Advocate }
Offence complained : U/S. 138 of N.I. Act.
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
Final Order : Accused is convicted
Date of Order : 09.04.2026.
3 C.C. No.4089 / 2022
JUDGMENT
The present complaint is filed under section 200 of
code of criminal procedure against the accused seeking to
punish him for the offense punishable under section 138
of the Negotiable Instruments Act ( in short referred as “N.I.
Act“).
02. The brief facts of the complaint are as under.
It is stated that, the complainant and accused are
known to each other for the past several years. The
accused has borrowed hand loan of Rs.2,50,000/- from the
complainant on 10.01.2021 by way of cash and had
promised to repay the same within 6 months together with
interest @ 12% p.a. It is further stated that, to repay the
said hand loan, the accused has issued post dated cheque
29.09.2021 bearing No. 991259 for Rs.2,50,000/- drawn
on State Bank of India, Leggere Branch, Bangalore . When
the Complainant had presented the said cheque with
banker for encashment, it has returned unpaid due to
“Funds insufficient” in the account of the drawer as per
4 C.C. No.4089 / 2022
bankers return memo dated 30.09.2021. Thereafter on
28.10.2021 the Complainant got issued demand notice to
the two addresses of the accused by RPAD and the RPAD
sent to the residential address of accused returned with
shara as ‘no such person’. But the notice sent to the
native place of the accused also returned unserved with a
report as ‘ party not in station’. Therefore, the accused
niether has paid the cheque amount nor has given any
reply. Therefore, it is prayed to punish the accused under
section 138 of NI Act and grant him compensation.
03. On presentation of the complaint, this court has
verified the averments of the complaint and also annexed
documents. Having made out prima facie case cognizance
has been taken for the offense punishable u/s 138 of NI
Act. As per the verdict of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Indian Bank Association V/s. Union of India and others
sworn statement of the Complainant has been recorded as
PW1 and in all got marked 12 documents at Ex.P1 to P12.
Having made out prima facie case it is ordered to register
5 C.C. No.4089 / 2022
the complaint in register No.III and to issue process against
the accused.
04. In response to the court summons, the accused put
her appearance before the court through her counsel and
filed bail application under section 436 of Cr.P.C., along
with necessary applications, since the alleged offense is
bailable in nature, accused has been enlarged on bail. The
plea has been recorded and read over to the accused she
pleaded not guilty and wanted to put forth her defense. As
per section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, sworn
statement of the Complainant has been treated as affidavit
evidence and the accused has been permitted to cross-
examine of PW1. After terminating the Complainant side
evidence, the statement of accused under section 313 of
Cr.P.C., read over and explained to accused the
incriminating evidence, the accused denied the same in
toto and also wanted to adduce evidence on her behalf.
Accordingly, the she has adduced her oral evidence as DW1
and got marked two documents at Ex.D1 and D2.
6 C.C. No.4089 / 2022
05. The the arguments advanced by both the learned
counsels.
06. The following points that arise for my consideration
are as under;
POINTS
1. Does the complainant proves
beyond reasonable doubts that, the
accused has issued cheque bearing
No. 991259 dated 29.09.2021 for
Rs.2,50,000/- drawn on State Bank
of India, Leggere Branch, Bangalore .
towards the discharge of his lawful
debt of the complainant and when
the Complainant presented the said
cheque for encashment, it was
returned unpaid due to shara as
“Funds insufficient” as per banker’s
memo and in-spite of issuance of
demand notice, the accused has
failed to pay the cheque amount,
thereby has committed the offence
7 C.C. No.4089 / 2022
punishable under section 138 of NI
Act?
2. What Order or sentence ?
07. My findings to the above points is as follows;
1. Point No.1: In the Affirmative
2. Point No.2: As per final order
for the following;
REASONS
POINT No.1:
08. It is the specific case of the complainant that, the
accused has borrowed from him a hand loan of
Rs.2,50,000/- for her domestic purpose with a promise to
repay the same within 6 months. Thereafter to discharge
the liability of the Complainant the accused has issued
disputed cheque. When the Complainant has presented
the said cheque with his banker for encahsment, it has
returned unpaid due to “Funds insufficient” in the account
of the drawer. Thereafter in spite of issuance of the
demand notice by RPAD at two addresses, one notice
returned as ‘no such person’ and another notice notice
8 C.C. No.4089 / 2022returned as ‘party not in station’, the accused neither has
paid the cheque amount nor has given any reply.
Wherefore, it is sought to prosecute the accused under
section 138 of NI Act and to grant him compensation.
09. To substantiate and to prove her case beyond all
reasonable doubts, the sworn statement of complainant
has been treated as affidavit evidence. PW1 has replicated
the averments of the complaint and got marked in all 12
documents. Ex.P1 is the disputed cheque, Ex.P2 is the
bank return memo, Ex.P3 is the demand notice, Ex.P4 to to
7 are the postal receipts, Ex.P8 to P10 are the returned
RPAD Covers, Ex.P11 and P12 are the photocopies of
aadhar cards of accused and her husband which have
been confronted to her during cross examination. To
disprove the case of the Complainant and also to rebut the
Legal presumptions which could be drawn in favour of
complainant, the accused by name Smt. Mani stepped into
witness box and adduced her oral evidence as DW1 and got
marked two documents at Ex.D1 and D2. Ex.D1 is the Pen
9 C.C. No.4089 / 2022
drive, Ex.D2 is the certificate u/s 63 of BSA. Both the
learned documents have cross examined their rival
witnesses comprehensively.
10. Before to venture in the appreciation and reliability
of oral and documentary evidence produced on records, it
is imperative on this court to find out whether the
Complainant has complied the necessary ingredients of
section 138 of NI Act before filing the present complaint.
11. Looking upon the disputed cheque, bank return
memos, demand notice at Ex.P.1 to 3 it can be seen that,
the disputed cheque had been presented with bank within
its validity period and demand notice has been issued
within 30 days from the date of receiving the bank return
memo. As per the RPAD returned covers at Ex.P8 and P9,
both have returned un-served with a shara as ‘no such
person in the address’ . Even during cross-examination of
PW1 and also in the chief of DW1 the service of demand
notice is denied. In the returned RPAD cover at Ex.P10 a
10 C.C. No.4089 / 2022
shara is made as ‘party not in station’ which means, the
said notice has been sent to the correct the proper address.
During the cross-examination of DW1 the photocopy of her
adhaar card and also the adhaar card of her husband has
been got marked at Ex.P11 and P12. In both the aadhar
cards and in the deposition of DW1 the same address is
appearing at Mallahalli Village of Krishnaraj Nagar Taluk in
Mysore District and to the same address the RPAD at
Ex.P10 was sent. Even in the cause title of the complaint
the 2nd address of the accused the same address is shown.
Other than these addresses, no other address is brought
on record by the accused. Thus, there is a deemed service
of demand notice to the accused under Ex.P.10 as per
Section 27 of General Clauses Act. Therefore, I am of the
considered opinion that, the present complaint has been
filed before this court only after the fulfillment of the
requirements of section 138 of NI Act.
12. Section 118 & 139 of NI Act are two important
provisions and they provides for raising mandatory
11 C.C. No.4089 / 2022
presumptions in favour of the complainant until the
contrary is proved by the accused. Even in the catena of
decisions i.e., in the case of Rangappa Vs. Mohan reported
in 2010(11) SCC 441, in the case of Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh
Kumar reported in 2019(4) SCC 197, in the case of APS
Forex Services (P) Ltd., Vs.Shakthi International Fashion
Linkers reported in 2020(12) SCC 724, in the case of
Rajeshbai Muljibhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in
2020(3) SCC 794, in the case of Triyambak S. Hegde Vs.
Sripad reported in Live Law 2021 SC 492 , a precedent is
laid down that, ” Once the issuance of cheque and the
signature thereon is admitted by the accused, the court is
required to raise presumption in favour of the the
complainant stating that, the accused has issued the
cheque for some consideration towards discharge of his
legal debt or liability of the complainant and that the
complainant is the due holder of the said cheque. The
burden or reverse onus shifts on the accused to rebut the
statutory presumptions under sections 118(a) & 139 of NI
Act.” Now, it is well established law that, the presumption
12 C.C. No.4089 / 2022
mandated by section 139 of NI Act, thus indeed includes
the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability and it is
open for the accused to raise a probable defense wherein
the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability can be
contested and he shall prove before the court on
preponderance of probabilities, only thereupon a statutory
presumption raised in favour of the complainant stands
rebutted.
13. In the instance case on hand, during cross-
examination of PW1 in para No.3 of page No.6 a suggestion
has been made in the form defense stating that, in the year
2019 the accused has became member of two chit
transactions of Rs.70,000/- each runned by the
complainant and at that time the complainant used to get
Rs.5,000/- per month and in the month of November 2019
the accused had taken bid amount of Rs.50,000/- and for
the security of the said bid amount the complainant had
taken two blank cheques from her and by misusing those
cheques she has filed this false case. During entire cross-
13 C.C. No.4089 / 2022
examination of PW1 many factual aspects have been
elicited such as the financial capacity of the complainant
and residing of both accused and complainant together in
the same locality. Further elicited that, no other financial
transaction had taken place between both of them other
than this disputed transaction. Further elicited that, the
accused has paid 3 – 4 months interest amount. Except
this, no such material evidence has been culled out to
support the defense version. On the other hand, accused
Smt. Mani herself has entered in the witness box and led
her oral evidence as DW1 stating that, she knows the
complainant through from their common friend Raziya.
She deposed that, through Raziya she took two chit
membership with the complainant in the year 2019 for
Rs.70,000/- each with monthly installment of Rs.5,000/-
each and at that time the complainant had taken from her
two un-signed blank cheques. She deposes that, she had
paid Rs.10,000/- every month for 5 months to the
complainant and due to arrival of covid-19 she had left to
her native place by vacating her house at Bangalore. She
14 C.C. No.4089 / 2022
testified that, when she was in her native place, the
complainant has called over telephone and asked for the
payment of chit amount, accordingly she had came to
Bangalore and paid Rs.35,000/- chit amount. She said
that, in spite of her repayment of chit amount, the
complainant did not returned her two blank cheques.
14. From the oral evidence of both complainant and
accused, it is admitted fact that, both are known to each
other and have resided in the same locality. Mere denial of
signatures on the disputed cheque is not sufficient unless
the accused shall take some steps, such as referring her
disputed signature on the cheque to the hand writing
expert. No such application is filed on behalf of accused.
On the other hand, during cross-examination of DW1 the
learned prosecuting counsel has shown her signature on
the vakalathnama of her advocate and also shown to her,
her signature made on her chief examination, she has
denied both her signatures. On careful perusal of
signatures of accused on the vakalathnama of her
15 C.C. No.4089 / 2022
advocate, plea and cheque at Ex.P1(a) all those signatures
seems to be one and the same. It is surprise to see that,
on 313 statement the accused has put her signature in
kannada language therefore both the legal presumptions
u/s 118 and 139 of NI Act shall operates in favour of the
complainant. Now, the burden shifts on the accused to
prove her above said defense by producing cogent, strong,
reliable and acceptable evidence. It is generally noticeable
fact that, no one would be expected to receive a blank
cheque without signature for any purposes. During her
cross-examination DW1 has admitted that, she has not
produced any documents relating to alleged running of chit
transactions by the complainant. During the cross-
examination of PW1 it is suggested that, while the accused
becoming member of the chit transaction the complainant
had taken her blank cheque. However, during her evidence
DW1 stated that, out of two chit transactions, when she
took the bid amount for one chit, the complainant had
taken disputed cheque as a security. This is the contrary
evidence. Further, it is commonly acceptable fact that,
16 C.C. No.4089 / 2022
without having valid license under the chit funds Act,
many women folks or the men under takes illegal chit
transactions only by maintaining a common register. If the
accused do not have any records, she could have adduced
at least the oral evidence of any one of the chit member, to
corroborate her oral testimony. Or she could have adduced
the evidence of Raziya who has introduced her to the
complainant. But no such effort has been made. That
apart, as per her own version when the complainant has
failed to return her alleged blank cheque, she could have
issued notice to her or could have written letter to her
banker. If at all she did not put her signature on the
disputed cheque, she could have file application before the
court to call for records from her bank, such as application
for account opening and specimen signatures card. That
effort is also not made. Thus, considering all these
material evidences it clearly goes to show that, the accused
has failed to take probable evidence and to produce any
acceptable evidence. Accused has also produced one pen
drive along with certificate u/s 63 (4) of BSA and
17 C.C. No.4089 / 2022
contended that, this is the telephonic conversation between
her and the complainant, in which the complainant has
admitted about her running chit transaction. At the time
of receiving this pen drive in the court and marking, this
pen drive has been displayed in the open court in presence
of both the parties and their counsels. In the said
conversation no such clear discussions appears to have
been made in respect of alleged chit transaction. During
cross-examination of DW1, the complainant has denied of
her conversation in the said pen drive at Ex.D1 and asked
the accused whether she could send the said pen drive to
the forensic science laboratory for its examination and for
the said question she is ready for doing so. But she has
not filed any application and also not prays before this
court to take sample voice recording of the complainant to
send the pen drive at Ex.P1 to the expert for examination.
When the complainant has denied her voice in the pendrive
at Ex.D1, unless expert opinion is taken on Ex.P1, this pen
drive cannot be reliable in evidence to corroborate the
testimony of DW1. Therefore, the legal presumptions
18 C.C. No.4089 / 2022
operated in favour of the complainant have not been
rebutted by the accused. The onus do not shifts on the
complainant. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the
Affirmative .
POINT NO.2:
15. In the case of M/s. Banavathy & Company V/s.
Mahavir Electro Mech (P). Ltd. And others in Criminal
Revision Petition No.996/ 2016 the Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka pleased to direct all trail court to impose for
further interest @9% p.a. on the compensation amount. In
the light of guidelines issued by the Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
Acting under section 255 (2) of
Criminal Procedure Code, accused is
hereby convicted for the offense
punishable under section 138 of
Negotiable Instrument Act and sentenced
to pay fine of Rs.3,10,000/- together with
19 C.C. No.4089 / 2022
future interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of
default to till the date of deposit. In
default, accused shall undergo simple
imprisonment for 6(six) months.
Acting under section 357(1) of code of
criminal procedure, it is ordered that an
amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three
Lakhs only) along with interest accrued
there from shall be paid to the
complainant as a compensation
remaining amount of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand only) is defrayed
to the state for the expenses incurred in
the prosecution.
The bail bond of accused stands
canceled subject to appeal period.
Supply free copy of judgment to the
accused.
{Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and computerized by her, revised corrected
and then pronounced in the open court on this 9th day of April 2026}.
(BHOLA PANDIT)
XX ACJM,
20 C.C. No.4089 / 2022
ANNEXURE
List of witnesses examined on behalf of complainant:
P.W.1 Yashodha
List of documents produced on behalf of complainant:
Ex.P.1 Cheque Ex.P.1(a) Signature of the accused Ex.P.2 Bank endorsement Ex.P.3 Copy of the legal notice Ex.P.4 to 7 Postal receipts - 4 Nos. Ex.P.8 to 10 Closed postal covers Ex.P.11 Aadhar card Ex.P.12 Aadhar card
List of witnesses examined on behalf of accused:
D.W.1 Mani
List of documents produced on behalf of accused:
Ex.D.1 Pen Drive
Ex.D.2 63 BSA certificate
XX A.C.J.M. Bengaluru.
