Bangalore District Court
Premalatha H.J vs Krishnamurthy.V on 11 June, 2025
KABC020235822023
IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES & ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
BENGALURU (SCCH-08)
DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF JUNE - 2025
PRESENT: Smt. Kannika M.S.,
M.A., LL.B.
XII ADDL. SCJ & ACJM,
MEMBER - MACT, BENGALURU.
C.C. No.6474/2023
Complainant : Mrs. Premalatha H.J.,
C/o. Mr. Shivanna H.M.,
Aged about 46 years,
R/at No.800, 4th Main A block,
2nd Stage, Rajajinagar,
Bangalore - 5600 010.
(By Sri. P. Raveendran, Advocate)
:Vs:
Accused : Mr. Krishnamurthy V.,
R/at No.2210, 1st Floor,
12th Main (Near Sangolli Rayanna
Park),
nd
2 Stage, Rajaji Nagar,
Bangalore - 560010.
(By Sri. D.K. Somesh, Advocate)
SCCH-8 2 C.C.No.6474/2023
Date of complaint : 25.07.2023
Date of commencement of
Evidence : 07.08.2023
Offence charged : Sec.138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act
Date of Judgment : 11.06.2025
Opinion of the Judge : Accused found guilty
JUDGEMENT
This is a private complaint filed U/Sec.200 of Cr.P.C.
against the accused for the alleged offence punishable
U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
2. The brief facts of the case of the complainant is
that:
The accused and complainant are known to each other
from 2018 and on the basis of acquaintance, accused
approached the complainant for handloan. Accordingly
complainant lent handloan of Rs.5,00,000/- to the accused on
SCCH-8 3 C.C.No.6474/2023different dates by cash and the accused promised to return the
said amount within three to four months. When the
complainant demanded for return of the money, towards
discharge of liability, the accused issued a cheque bearing
No.746017 dated 17.05.2023 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-,
drawn on State Bank of India, Kasturi Nagar Branch,
Bengaluru. As per the instruction of the accused, complainant
has presented the said cheque for encashment through his
banker Bank of Baroda, Subramanya Nagar branch,
Bengaluru, but the said cheque came to be dishonored and
returned with shara “Funds Insufficient”. Hence he has issued
the legal notice on 12.06.2023 through RPAD to the accused
address and the same was duly served on the accused. The
accused has not paid the amount, and hence, the complainant
has filed the present complaint before this Court.
3. Cognizance was taken and sworn statement of the
complainant was recorded. Since there were sufficient materials
SCCH-8 4 C.C.No.6474/2023
to proceed against the accused, the summons was issued to the
accused. Accused appeared through his counsel and got
enlarged on bail. Substance of accusation was framed, read
over and explained to the accused in the language known to
him, he denied the same and claimed to be tried. Hence, the
case was posted for complainant’s evidence.
4. In order to prove her case, the complainant got
examined herself as PW-1 and got marked the 8 documents at
Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 and closed her evidence. After closure of
complainant’s side evidence, the statement U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C
was prepared and read over to accused, he has denied the
same. The accused has examined himself as DW.1, but not
produced any document. Thereafter, case was posted for
arguments.
5. Inspite of giving sufficient opportunity, arguments
was not addressed by complainant and accused counsel.
Perused the entire records in this case.
SCCH-8 5 C.C.No.6474/2023
6. The following points arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the complainant proves that, the
accused has issued the cheque bearing
No.746017 dated 17.05.2023 for a sum of
Rs.5,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India,
Kasturi Nagar Branch, Bengaluru and the
complainant presented the said cheque for
encashment, but the said cheque returned on
19.05.2023 with an endorsement as “Funds
Insufficient” ?
2. Whether the complainant further proves that he
has got issued the legal notice dated: 12.06.2023
to the Accused demanding the cheque amount
from the Accused within 15 days from the date of
receipt of the notice, the said legal notice is duly
served on the accused, but the accused has failed
to make the payment of the cheque amount well
within the prescribed time and there by
committed an offence punishable under section
138 of Negotiable Instrument Act?
3. What order?
7. The finding of this court on the above points is as
under:
Point No.1 : In Affirmative
Point No.2 : In Affirmative
Point No.3 : As per final order,
for the following;
SCCH-8 6 C.C.No.6474/2023
REASONS
POINTS NO.1 & 2:
8. Since these points are interconnected, they are taken
up together to avoid repetition of facts.
9. According the complaint, the accused is known to
the complainant and on the basis of said acquaintance
borrowed handloan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant.
Thereafter when the complainant demanded to repay the
amount, the accused issued the post dated cheque bearing
No.746017 dated 17.05.2023 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- drawn
on State Bank of India, Kasturi Nagar Branch, Bengaluru, and
when she has presented the said cheque for collection and for
realization, the said cheque dishonored and returned with
shara “Funds Insufficient” on 19.05.2023, hence she issued the
legal notice to the accused on 12.06.2023 through RPAD and
the same was served on 14.06.2023. The accused has not paid
the amount, hence the complaint.
SCCH-8 7 C.C.No.6474/2023
10. Ex.P1 is the Account statement, Ex.P2 is the cheque
bearing No.746017 dated 17.05.2023 for Rs.5,00,000/- issued
by the accused in favour of the Complainant. Ex.P2(a) is the
signature of the accused on the cheque. Ex.P3 is the deposit
slip, Ex.P4 is the endorsement dated: 19.05.2023 issued by the
Bank with respect to the dishonour of the cheque bearing
No.746017 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. It is shows that cheque
are dishonored for the reason Funds Insufficient. Ex.P5 is the
legal notice dated 12.06.2023 issued by the complainant
through his counsel to the accused for the repayment of the
said loan amount. Ex.P6 is the postal receipt, Ex.P7 is the
postal acknowledgment, Ex.P8 is the reply of accused. Ex.P2 to
P8 shows that the legal notice sent to the accused was served to
the accused and he has given reply. The accused has not repaid
the amount. Thereafter complainant has filed this case against
the accused. Hence, complainant has complied the mandatory
requirements of Sec.138 of N.I. Act.
SCCH-8 8 C.C.No.6474/2023
11. The accused has examined himself and DW.1 and in
the examination in chief accused has deposed that, he had
taken loan from the complainant in the month of September
2020 for 5% interest. He had paid interest for 6 months till
April 2021. I had deposited directly to the bank. At the time of
obtaining loan complainant had taken 3 blank cheques. Out of
them one cheque misused through one MD Sajan. Thereafter
complainant marriage was fixed and she insisted for returning
of the said amount, but complainant has refused his request.
His daughter and wife have paid the amount. False case is
foisted against the accused.
12. Let me discuss whether the amount mentioned in the
cheque is for a legally recoverable debt or for other liability. The
interpretation of the expression for discharge of any debt or
other liability occurring in section 138 of N.I. Act is significant
and decisive in matter. The explanation appended to section
138 express the meaning of the expression debt or other
SCCH-8 9 C.C.No.6474/2023
liability for the purpose of section 138. This expression means a
legally enforceable or other liability. Section 138 treats
dishonour of cheque as an offence if the cheque has been
issued in discharge of debt or any other liability. The
explanation leaves no manner of doubt that to attract an
offence under section 138 there should be legally enforceable
debt or other liability. As per section 139 of N.I. Act there is a
presumption in favour of the complainant that the cheque was
issued for discharge of debt or other liability. The said
presumption is a legal presumption and it is in favour of the
holder of cheque. It is open to the accused to rebut the said
presumption. The accused has not rebut the presumptions
which is available in favour of the complainant.
13. It is the mandate of Section 139 that there is a
presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque that the
holder received the cheque of the nature referred to in section
138, for the discharge in whole or in part or other liability.
SCCH-8 10 C.C.No.6474/2023
Needless to mention that the presumption contemplated under
section 139 of N.I. Act is a rebuttable presumption. However
the onus of proving that the cheque was not in discharge of any
debt or other liability is on the drawer of the cheque/accused.
In Hiten P. Dalal V/s Bratindranath Banerjee reported in
2001 (6) SCC 16 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that both
section 138 and 139 require that the court shall presume the
liability of the drawer of the cheque for the amounts for which
the cheque are drawn.
Section 139 introduces an exception to the general rule as
to the burden of proof and shifts the onus on the accused. The
presumption under section 139 of N.I. Act is a presumption of
law, as distinguished from presumption of facts.
In Laxmi Dyechem V/s State of Gujarat and others
reported in 2012 (13) SCC 375 , the Hon’ble Supreme court
reiterated that in view of section 139 it has to be presumed that
a cheque was issued in discharge of a debt or other liability but
SCCH-8 11 C.C.No.6474/2023
the presumption could be rebutted by adducing evidence. The
burden of proof was however on the person who wanted to
rebut the presumption.
In K.N. Beena V/s Muniyappan and Anothers reported
in 2001(8) SCC 458, the Hon’ble Supreme court held that in
view of the provisions of section 139 of the N.I.Act read with
section 118 thereof the court had to presume that the cheque
had been issued for discharging a debt or liability. The said
presumption was rebuttable and could be rebutted by the
accused by proving the contrary. The accused had to prove by
cogent evidence that there was no debt or liability.
14. The accused main contention is that he has
borrowed only Rs.2,00,000/- and he has repaid the same by
way of cash. But accused has not produced any document
regarding to repayment of the amount. In the cross-
examination accused/Dw1 stated that “he has forgotten the
date of repayment of the amount to complainant and he has
SCCH-8 12 C.C.No.6474/2023
not taken any document from the complainant for repayment of
the amount.” The said answer of the accused creates doubt
regarding his defence. The accused has not answered what
precluded him to pay the amount through account when he has
received the same through Bank transfer, for the reasons best
known to him.
15. The accused has not denied the lending capacity of
the complainant, but he has taken defence that, he has no
necessity to receive the amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. According to
the complainant accused has borrowed the loan for the purpose
of paying the school fees of his children and to meet his
financial commitments, to this aspect Dw1 in his cross-
examination admits that in the year 2020 his children were
studying Engineering and BBM, he had to pay the educational
fee of more than 2 lakhs per year. The complainant has
established the said facts in the cross-examination of the Dw1.
SCCH-8 13 C.C.No.6474/2023
16. The accused counsel in the cross-examination of the
Pw1 suggested that “You have lent the loan to accused for the
interest of 5%” and the said suggestion was denied by the
complainant. The said suggestion of the accused counsel makes
it clear that accused has lent the loan from the complainant as
per complaint averments.
17. The accused further defence is that at the time of
borrowing the loan from the complainant he has issued two
cheques as per demand of accused, but in the reply notice
accused taken defence that complainant has forcefully taken 3
cheques from him, these are contrary to each other.
18. According to the accused the cheques issued as
security for loan amount at the time of borrowing of loan, then
he has repaid the same. The complainant has not returned the
cheque and misused it. If the complainant misused the signed
blank cheques, why he kept quiet without taking the legal
action against the complainant and what prevented him to
SCCH-8 14 C.C.No.6474/2023
taken action against him, it creates the suspicion on the
contention of the accused. Any prudent man cannot sit like
accused, if the cheques were misused by other person and it
was within his knowledge.
19. When the accused has taken up a specific plea that
the disputed cheque of this case issued in the year 2020 as
security for loan and he has repaid the loan by way of cash.
Inspite of repayment of loan amount and demand for return of
cheque, complainant has not returned the cheque and misused
the same. The onus to prove under Section 102 Indian
Evidence Act shifts on the accused to demonstrate the same.
But except oral testimony the accused has not produced any
document. When such being the case, there is no strength in
the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the
accused. This court is not persuaded to accept the contention
of the accused. Assuming for a moment, hypothetically only for
the sake of appreciation of evidence, if the disputed cheque
SCCH-8 15 C.C.No.6474/2023
issued in the year 2020, what prevented the accused to call the
complainant to return the cheque and also to take the legal
action even after repayment of hand loan. The accused would
have atleast sent a legal notice after repayment of loan to give
back the cheque. The evidence of DW.1 discloses that the
accused has not taken any legal action whatsoever known to
law calling the complainant to give back the cheque which he
has taken as security for loan amount. No ordinary prudent
man will sleep over his rights for 3 years when his cheque is
not returned. Without there being any documentary or
independent oral evidence, mere contention taken up in the
cross-examination of PW.1 does not avail any benefit to the
accused. Hence, this contention urged by the accused is also
not tenable in the eye of law.
20. Further more, the accused has not taken any action
against the complainant after filing of this case. If there was
really a transaction as alleged by the accused then he would
SCCH-8 16 C.C.No.6474/2023
have certainly taken action. In this regard it is relevant to rely
on the decision reported in AIR 2023 SC 5018 in the case of
Rajesh Jain V/s Ajay Singh, wherein it was held as here
under :
Once the presumption under Section 139 was
given effect to, the Courts ought to have
proceeded on the premise that the cheque was,
indeed, issued in discharge of a debt/liability. The
entire focus would then necessarily have to shift
on the case set up by the accused, since the
activation of the presumption has the effect of
shifting the evidential burden on the accused. The
nature of inquiry would then be to see whether
the accused has discharged his onus of rebutting
the presumption. If he fails to do so, the Court
can straightaway proceed to convict him, subject
to satisfaction of the other ingredients of Section
138. If the Court finds that the evidential burden
placed on the accused has been discharged, the
complainant would be expected to prove the said
fact independently, without taking aid of the
presumption. The Court would then take an
overall view based on the evidence on record and
decide accordingly.
SCCH-8 17 C.C.No.6474/2023
The principles laid down therein aptly applicable to the
case on hand. In the instant case on hand also the accused has
taken a similar defence that the complainant has misused the
cheque given in the transaction with him, but the accused
failed to initiate any legal action in this regard. The accused
however failed to provide any substantial evidence or to file
police complaint regarding alleged misusage of cheque. In
contrast, the case of the complainant remained consistent and
the signature of the accused on cheque was unchallenged,
allowing presumption has to legally enforceable debt to take
effect. To trigger the presumption mere admission of the
drawer’s signature without admitting the execution of the entire
contents in the cheque is sufficient. The said principles has
been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a decision
reported in (2019) 4 SCC 197 in the case of Birsingh Vs.
Mukhesh Kumar. When such is the case the principles therein
aptly applicable to the case on hand.
SCCH-8 18 C.C.No.6474/2023
21. Further on the same point of law it is relevant to rely
on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of APS Forex
Services Pvt. Ltd., v. Shakti International Fashion Linkers
and Others reported in AIR 2020 SC 945 held regarding
presumption is concerned that when the accused admits
issuance of cheque, his signature on cheque and that
cheque in question was issued for discharging the
liability, there is always a presumption in favour of the
complainant that there exists legally recoverable debt or
liability.
22. In the instant case, the accused has not raised any
probable defence. Hence, in such an event the accused has not
rebutted the presumption as contemplated under Sec.139 of
N.I.Act. The accused though disputed financial capacity of the
complainant, but the complainant had demonstrated his
financial capacity. The accused also not disputed the signature
SCCH-8 19 C.C.No.6474/2023
in Ex.P.2. Therefore, it is clear as a cloud less sky that
presumption envisaged under Sec.118 and 139 of N.I.Act has
not been rebutted by the accused.
23. Further the signature on the cheque was admitted by
the accused. The discussions made supra discloses that the
accused failed to demonstrate that, he has given the Ex.P2
cheque as a security to the transaction between the accused
and the complainant. In this regard it is relevant to rely on a
decision reported in Hon’ble Apex court reported in 2015(4)
KCCR 2881 (SC), held in between “Vasanthakumar V/s
Vijayakumari, wherein it is held that:
“Accused not disputing issuance of cheque and
his signature on it. Plea that it was issued long
back as security and that loan amount was
repaid”.
And also relied on Decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India reported in AIR 2019 SC 2446 (Bir Singh V/S
Mukesh Kumar) wherein the Hon’ble court held that:
SCCH-8 20 C.C.No.6474/2023
“Negotiable Instrument Act(26 of 1881), S.138,
S.139- Presumption as to legally enforceable debt-
Rebuttal- signed blank cheque- If voluntarily
presented to payee, towards payment, payee may fill
up amount and other pariculars and it in itself
would not invalidate cheque- Onus would still be on
accused to prove that cheque was not issued for
discharge of debt or liability by adducing evidence.”
Another decision reported in 2021(1) DCR 625 between
M/s. Kalamani Tex and another Vs P. Balasubramanian,
wherein it is held that:
“Since signature on cheque was admitted and
presumption raised upon accused was not
sufficiently rebutted by accused, so passing
acquittal is unjustified”.
The aforesaid decisions are aptly applicable to the facts
and circumstances of the present case.
24. The accused also failed to obtain favourable answer
from the mouth of PW.1 to rebut the presumptions. Though
there are some small discrepancies in the evidence of PW.1,
that itself will not falsify the case of the complainant.
SCCH-8 21 C.C.No.6474/2023
25. The complainant produced the cheque marked as
Ex.P2 which was issued in his favour and he is the holder in
due course and the said cheque was dishonored for the reason
funds insufficient and even after issuance of notice, the
accused has not paid the cheque amount. Thereby he has
committed an offence punishable under section 138 of N.I. Act.
Accordingly, I answered the Point No.1 and 2 in the
Affirmative.
POINT No.3:-
26. Hence, considering the facts and circumstance involved
in the case, I am of the opinion that, the complainant is entitled
for the compensation as per section 80 of the Negotiable
Instrument Act. Accordingly, in the light of above detailed
discussion, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Acting U/Sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C. the
accused is hereby convicted for the offence
SCCH-8 22 C.C.No.6474/2023punishable U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act and he is
sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,10,000/-(Rupees
Five lakhs Ten thousand only).
In default of payment of the fine, the
accused shall undergo simple imprisonment
for a period of one year.
Out of the fine amount collected from the
accused, Rs.5,00,000/- shall be paid to the
complainant as compensation u/s.357(1) of
Cr.P.C, remaining Rs.10,000/- shall be
forfeited to State towards expenses of the
case.
It is made clear that in view of Sec.421(1)
of Cr.P.C even if the accused undergoes the
default sentence imposed above, he is not
absolved of liability to the fine amount.
Bail bond and surety bond of the accused
stands cancelled.
Office is directed to supply a free copy of
the judgment to the accused.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by her,
corrected and then pronounced by me, in the open Court on this the 11th
day of June, 2025)
Digitally signed by
KANNIKA KANNIKA M SMS Date: 2025.06.16
16:17:20 +0530(Kannika M.S.)
XII Addl. Small Causes Judge
& ACJM, Bengaluru.
SCCH-8 23 C.C.No.6474/2023
ANNEXURE
List of witnesses examined for complainant :-
P.W.1 : Mrs. Premalatha H.J.
List of documents marked for complainant:-
Exhibits Particulars of the Document Ex.P1 Account statement Ex,P2 Cheque Ex.P2(a) Signature of Accused Ex.P3 Deposit challan Ex.P4 Bank endorsement Ex.P5 Legal notice Ex.P6 Postal receipt Ex.P7 Postal acknowledgment Ex.P8 Reply of accused
List of witnesses examined for accused:
DW.1 : Sri. Krishnamurthy
List of documents marked for accused:-
Nil. Digitally signed
KANNIKA by KANNIKA M S
MS Date: 2025.06.16
16:17:27 +0530
(Kannika M.S.)
XII Addl. Small Causes Judge
& ACJM, Bengaluru.