Bangalore District Court
Cholamandalam Investment And Finance … vs Range Gowda A on 19 July, 2025
1
SCCH-11 C.C.No.4377/2020
KABC020208212020
BEFORE THE COURT OF I ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACJM,
BENGALURU. (SCCH-11)
PRESENT: SRI.NARENDRA.B.R., B.Sc., L.L.B.
I ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACJM
Dated this the 19th day of JULY, 2025
C.C. No:4377/2020
Complainant: M/s.Cholamandalam Investment and
Finance Company Ltd.,
Having its Registered Office at
Dare House, No.2, NSC Bose Road,
Parys, Chennai - 600001 and
Regional Office at #45, Prestige
Libra, above Passport Seva
Kendra, Lalbagh Road,
Bengaluru - 560027.
Represented by its Power of
Attorney Holder Mr.Ravi.T.J.,
(By Sri.Shivakumar B Gouda, Adv.)
-Vs-
Accused: Sri.Range Gowda.A.,
S/o.Ajje Gowda, Kareshiddanahalli
Hiregowda, Chikamagalore -
577168.
(By Sri.Prema Kumar.D.S., Adv.)
2
SCCH-11 C.C.No.4377/2020
JUDGMENT
The Complainant Company, represented through its
Authorized Signatory, presented the complaint
against accused for the offence punishable under
Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The case of the complainant company is that:-
The complainant company incorporated and
registered under the provisions of Companies Act
1956. The accused approached complainant’s company
and borrowed loan facility. As per the contract
₹.4,92,071/- was due and payable by accused and he
got issued cheque bearing No.168303 dated:
25.02.2020 for a sum of ₹.4,92,071/- and assured the
complainant company that he would maintain
sufficient balance in the account. When the cheque
was presented for encashment, the cheque returned
with an endorsement “Funds Insufficient”.
3
SCCH-11 C.C.No.4377/2020
Thereafter, the company issued legal notice to the
accused on 23.03.2020. Even after issuing of legal
notice, the accused failed to pay the due amount or
to reply the legal notice. Thereafter the
complainant company was forced to file this case
against accused for the offence under Sec.138 of N.I
Act.
3. After presentation of complaint, the sworn
statement of Authorized representative of
Complainant Company was recorded and cognizance was
taken for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of
N.I.Act. Thereafter, summons was issued against
accused calling upon him to appear before the Court.
4. In response to summons, accused appeared
before the court and got enlarged on bail. The plea
of accused is recorded by reading over and
explaining the substance of accusation for which he
pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. The sworn
4
SCCH-11 C.C.No.4377/2020
statement of Authorized representative of
complainant’s company is treated as chief
examination of complainant and Ex.P.1 to P.6
documents got marked. The counsel for accused not
cross examined PW.2 and later, complainant closed
their side of evidence.
5. The accused remained absent continuously when
the matter stood posted for recording his statement
under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C and inspite of sufficient
opportunities, accused not appeared before the court
in order to deny the incriminating materials accrued
against him. As such, due to continuous absence of
accused, recording of his statement under Sec.313 of
Cr.P.C is dispensed with. The accused not led
evidence on his behalf and the matter posted for
arguments.
6. Heard argument of counsel for complainant and
argument of accused treated nil as the accused not
5
SCCH-11 C.C.No.4377/2020
appeared before the court in spite of according
opportunities either to lead evidence on his side or
to address argument. Perused the materials available
on record.
7. Now the following points arise for
consideration of the Court:
1. Whether complainant proves that the
accused issued cheque bearing No.168303
on 25.02.2020 drawn on Federal Bank for
₹.4,92,071/- to discharge his legally
enforceable debt and when the cheque was
presented for encashment, it was
dishonoured with an endorsement “Funds
Insufficient” and even after issuance of
legal notice he failed to pay cheque
amount and thereby accused committed an
offence punishable U/Sec.138 of N.I.Act?
2. What order?
8. This court answers the above points as below:
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative;
Point No.2 : As per the final order;
for the following:
6
SCCH-11 C.C.No.4377/2020
R E A S O N S
9. Point No.1:- It is the contention of
complainant that the accused borrowed loan from them
for the discharge of which he got issued the cheque
in question. It is further contended that the said
cheque got dishonoured on presentation for
encashment pertaining to which notice is also issued
to accused and in spite of service of notice, the
accused neither complied with the terms of notice
nor replied the notice.
10. In order to substantiate the contention of
complaint, the complainant furnished the cheque
bearing No.168303 dated 25.02.2020 for ₹.4,92,071/-
drawn on Federal Bank, which is marked as Ex.P.1.
The cheque is presented within the period of
limitation and statutory notice is also issued
within the stipulated period from the date of
7
SCCH-11 C.C.No.4377/2020
intimation of dishonour. The complainant complied
with the requirements of Sec.138 of N.I Act based on
which cognizance is taken by the court and summons
has been issued. Ex.P.1, cheque is stated to have
been issued by accused towards discharge of
liability which has arisen due to availing of loan
from the complainant. PW.2 has not been cross
examined on behalf of accused in order to contradict
the contention of complainant and the documents
furnished by the complainant. The evidence of PW.2
is not contradicted by accused in any manner. The
accused not contended regarding repayment of entire
loan. There is neither contention nor satisfactory
materials in order to consider the aspect of
repayment of loan amount by accused. The accused
could have stated the aspect of repayment, if any,
by giving reply to the notice issued by complainant
or through cross examination of PW.2. The accused
8
SCCH-11 C.C.No.4377/2020
not furnished any satisfactory materials before the
court in order to show the mode or manner in which
the cheque in question passed on to the complainant.
Apart from that accused could have furnished
materials before the court in order to show the
aspect of repayment, if any, made by him or to
explain the manner in which complainant got the
cheque. The accused neither contended nor furnished
materials to show that the cheque in question or the
account does not belongs to him. The accused not
furnished any materials to show that the cheque as
well as signature appearing in the cheque does not
belong to him. No materials are placed by the
accused to show that the cheque in question has not
been issued by him to the complainant Finance. No
rebuttal materials are placed by accused in order to
doubt or dispute the contention of complainant. The
accused, though appeared before the court, has
9
SCCH-11 C.C.No.4377/2020
neither cross examined PW.2 nor furnished any
documents in order to rebut the contention of
complainant. No materials are placed to doubt or
dispute that the cheque and the signature appearing
in the cheque, does not belong to accused. Thus, on
the basis of materials on record, it can be duly
construed that the cheque in question belongs to
accused.
11. The complainant furnished the copy of legal
notice sent to accused which is marked as Ex.P.3.
The complainant also furnished postal receipt and
complaint lodged to the postal authority which is
marked as Ex.P.4 and P.5. The said documents
disclose the aspect of issue notice to accused
regarding dishonour of cheque. The accused not
furnished any satisfactory materials to show that
the notice has not been served to him. The accused
not contended that the notice sent to him by the
10
SCCH-11 C.C.No.4377/2020
complainant has not been served to him. No materials
are placed by the accused in order to doubt or
dispute the aspect of service of notice issued by
the complainant. The address mentioned in the notice
is similar to that of the address mentioned in the
cause title. The summons issued through the court to
the address which is similar to the address
mentioned in the notice, has been served. The legal
notice is deemed to be served on the accused as the
same has been sent to the last known address of the
accused. The accused not contended about non-service
of notice to him. Further, the accused does not
appear to have replied the said notice. If the
accused has not given the cheque in question or if
he paid any amount towards the loan, then said
aspect could have been stated by issuing reply to
the notice. But, the accused not replied to the
notice issued on behalf of complainant. No materials
11
SCCH-11 C.C.No.4377/2020
are placed by accused in order to controvert or
rebut the aspect of issue of notice as well as
service of notice to him. No rebuttal materials are
placed by accused to show the aspect of non-service
of notice to him. In the absence of satisfactory
materials, the notice is deemed to be duly served on
the accused as required under the provisions of
N.I.Act. The accused failed to establish the aspect
of non-service of legal notice.
12. In AIR 2001 SC 2895 between K.N.Beena V/s
Muniyappa & Ors, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court held
that – The burden to prove the consideration for the
cheque lies on the accused, if not rebutted, the
presumption is that the cheque was issued for
consideration, it is for the accused to prove that
the cheque was not issued towards the debt or
liability. He has to lead credible evidence for
12
SCCH-11 C.C.No.4377/2020
rebuttable of this presumption. Mere denial of
averments will not suffice to shift his burden on to
the complainant.
13. Further, in AIR 2001 SC 3897 in between
Hithen. P Dalal V/s Bratindranath Bannerjee, wherein
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the presumption
under Section 139 of N.I.Act is a presumption of
law. It is not a presumption of fact. This
presumption has to be raised by the court in all the
cases once the factum of dishonour is established.
The onus of proof to rebut this presumption lies on
accused. The standard of such rebuttable evidence
depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.
Such evidence must be sufficient, cogent and should
prove beyond any reasonable doubt. Therefore, a mere
explanation is not sufficient to repel this
presumption of law.
13
SCCH-11 C.C.No.4377/2020
14. The complainant established his contention
related to entering into loan transaction by accused
and issue of cheque in favour of complainant for
discharge of loan. On perusal of record, the accused
not placed any rebuttal materials to deny the aspect
of entering into loan transaction as contended by
the complainant and issue of cheque in favour of
complainant. No satisfactory materials are placed by
accused to show that the cheque does not belong to
him and the manner in which the complainant acquired
the cheque in question. The accused failed to
establish that the cheque in question has not been
issued to the complainant. As per Sec.139 of N.I
Act, presumption arises in favour of complainant
pertaining to issuance of cheque towards discharge
of debt or liability. The accused is presumed to be
issued the cheque in favour of complainant in
discharge of liability. The presumption provided
14
SCCH-11 C.C.No.4377/2020
under Sec.139 of N.I Act is a rebuttal presumption.
The accused not placed any satisfactory materials in
order to rebut the presumption arisen in favour of
complainant under the said provision. The accused
not made any efforts to rebut the presumption
accrued in favour of complainant as per Sec.139 of
N.I Act. The accused not cross examined PW.2 in
order to rebut or controvert the contentions of
complainant. There is no contention from accused
regarding repayment of loan amount or non-service of
legal notice. No cogent materials are placed by
accused in order to negate or rebut the contentions
of complainant. The accused not produced any cogent
materials in order to rebut the contention of
complainant and the documents furnished by
complainant. The accused not furnished any materials
to rebut the presumption arisen in favour of
complainant under Sec.139 of N.I Act.
15
SCCH-11 C.C.No.4377/2020
15. The materials on record disclose the aspect
of entering into loan transaction by the accused
with complainant Finance. Ex.P.2, cheque, bears the
signature of accused which aspect has been disproved
by accused by placing substantive rebuttal
materials. The accused not contended that the cheque
in question does not belong to him and also not
disputed his signature appearing in Ex.P.2, cheque.
The signature in the cheque is also not disputed by
accused. The materials on record clearly disclose
that the cheque belongs to the accused and signature
appearing in the cheque belongs to the accused. The
accused not furnished any satisfactory materials to
disprove or rebut the aspect of issue of cheque and
to dispute the signature in the cheque. The accused
not put forth any contention stating that the cheque
does not belong to him or that signature appearing
in the cheque does not belong to him. The accused
16
SCCH-11 C.C.No.4377/2020
not denied the signature appearing in the cheque and
no satisfactory materials are placed in that regard.
The accused not placed any materials to disprove or
rebut issue of cheque in favour of complainant. The
complainant succeeded in establishing the
contentions raised by them. The presumption under
Sec.139 and 118 of N.I Act is not rebutted by
accused by placing cogent and satisfactory
materials. The accused failed to rebut or contradict
the contentions of complainant with cogent and
substantive materials. There is due corroboration
between oral and documentary evidence adduced on
behalf of complainant. The evidence of PW.2 remains
unchallenged and unrebutted as the accused failed to
cross examine the witness. The contentions of
complainant are substantiated by cogent and
corroborative materials. The materials on record
disclose the aspect of issue of cheque by accused in
17
SCCH-11 C.C.No.4377/2020
favour of complainant towards discharge of liability
and dishonour of the same. The accused failed to
rebut or contradict the contentions of complaint as
well as the documents furnished by the complainant.
The documents furnished by complainant are in due
corroboration with the oral evidence adduced on
behalf of complainant. As the complainant succeeded
in establishing the contentions raised by them, this
court answers Point No.1 in the Affirmative.
16. POINT NO.2:- In view of above discussions,
this court deems it appropriate to pass the
following
O R D E R
Acting under Sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C,
accused found guilty for the offence
under Sec.138 of NI Act and is hereby
convicted for the said offence.
Further, accused is sentenced to pay
18
SCCH-11 C.C.No.4377/2020
fine of ₹.5,15,000/- and in default of
payment of fine amount, accused is
directed to undergo simple imprisonment
for a period of six months.
Out of the said fine amount, a sum of
₹.4,95,000/- is directed to be paid to
the complainant, as compensation under
Sec.357(3) of Cr.P.C, and remaining fine
amount of ₹.20,000/- is directed to be
appropriated to the State as fine.
The default sentence will not absolve
the accused from paying the compensation
as well as fine amount.
The bail bond of the accused is hereby
stand cancelled.
Office is directed to furnish free
copy of this judgment to the accused.
(Dictated to the stenographer over computer, corrected and
pronounced by me in open court on this 19th day of July, 2025)
(NARENDRA.B.R)
I ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACJM
BENGALURU
19
SCCH-11 C.C.No.4377/2020
ANNEXURE
List of Witnesses examined on behalf of complainant:
PW.1 Sri.Ravi.T.J PW.2 Sri.Ragavendra.J
List of Documents marked on behalf of complainant:
Ex.P1 Cheque bearing No.168303 Ex.P1(a) Signature of the accused Ex.P2 Bank Endorsement Ex.P3 Legal Notice Ex.P4 Postal Receipt Ex.P5 Letter to Post Master Ex.P6 Power of Attorney
List of Witnesses examined on behalf of accused:
-NIL-
List of documents marked on behalf of accused
-NIL-
(NARENDRA.B.R)
I ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACJM
BENGALURU