[ad_1]
Bangalore District Court
Gopalaiah N L vs Venkataraju T @ Raju @ Rajanna on 19 July, 2025
KABC030635702021
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 19th day of July 2025
C.C.No. 23037 / 2021
Complainant :
Sri.Gopalaiah N L
S/o. Late Lakshmaiah,
Aged about 61 years,
No.5/5, Chitra Residential Layout,
Attur Village,
Yelahanka New Town,
Bangalore - 560 064
{ By Sri.H Anand - Advocate }
Vs.
Sri. Venkataraju T. @ Raju @ Rajanna
2 C.C. 23037 / 2021
Accused : S/o. Thimmaiah,
Aged about 35 years,
Cheelur Colony,
Manniganahalli post,
Kudur Hobli,
Magadi Taluk,
Ramanagar District,
(By Sri. G H Lohith Kumar - Adv.)
Offence complained : U/S. 138 of N.I. Act.,
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
Final Order : Accused is convicted.
Date of Order : 19.07.2025
3 C.C. 23037 / 2021
JUDGMENT
The present complaint is filed under section 200 of
code of criminal procedure against the accused seeking to
punish him for the offence punishable under section 138
of the Negotiable Instruments Act ( in short referred as “N.I.
Act“).
02. The brief facts of the complaint is narrated as under :
It is alleged that, the Complainant is the native of
Nagogipalya, Udigere and accused has been running timber
merchant in and around native place of the Complainant .
In the 2nd week of February 2021 the accused has
approached the Complainant for purchase of standing
trees in the land of Complainant for consideration of
Rs.1,66,000/- and out of which a sum of Rs.80,000/- was
paid and start cutting standing trees. It is further alleged
that, in order to repay the remaining amount of
Rs.86,000/- the accused has issued disputed cheque
bearing No. 229720 dated 02.03.2021 for Rs.86,000/-
drawn on IDBI Bank, Muttaiah Layout, Nelamangala Town,
4 C.C. 23037 / 2021Bangalore Rural . When the Complainant has presented
the said cheque with his banker for encashment, the same
was returned unpaid due to “Funds insufficient” as per
bank endorsement dated 04.03.2021. Thereafter the
Complainant got issued demand notice to the accused on
23.03.2021 and in spite of service of the same on
29.03.2021 as per Ex.P5 the accused neither has paid the
cheque amount nor has given any reply. Hence, it is
sought to convict the accused under section 138 of NI Act
and award compensation under section 357 of Cr.P.C.
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 and thereafter the sworn statement of the
Complainant has been recorded as PW1 and got marked
documents at Ex.P1 to P5. Having made out prima facie
case it is ordered to register the complaint in register No.III
issue process against the accused.
5 C.C. 23037 / 2021
04. In response to the court summons, the accused put
his appearance before the court through his counsel and
filed bail application under section 436 of Cr.P.C., along
with application under section 145(2) of NI Act. The plea
has been recorded and read over to the accused, he
pleaded not guilty and wanted to put forth his defense. The
accused has been permitted to cross-examine of PW1. On
conclusion of the trail, the statement of accused has been
recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C., read over and
explained to him the incriminating evidence, the accused
denied the same in toto and wanted to lead defense
evidence. However, in spite of giving sufficient time the
accused has failed to adduce his side evidence.
05. Neither the Complainant nor the accused has
advanced the arguments so also not submitted any written
arguments in spite of giving opportunities.
06. The following points that arise for my consideration
are as under;
6 C.C. 23037 / 2021
POINTS
1. Does the complainant proves
beyond reasonable doubts that, the
accused has issued cheque
bearing No. 229720 dated
02.03.2021 for Rs.86,000/- drawn
on IDBI Bank, Muttaiah Layout,
Nelamangala Town, Bangalore Rural
towards the discharge of his lawful
liability of the complainant and
when the said cheque was presented
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 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 purchased standing trees of Complainant and
7 C.C. 23037 / 2021has paid sum of Rs.80,000/- and started cutting the
standing trees in the land of the Complainant and during
cutting of standing trees when the Complainant had
demanded to pay remaining amount, the accused has
issued the disputed cheque and the same was presented
for encashment, it has returned unpaid due to “Funds
insufficient”. In spite of issuance of demand notice the
accused neither paid the cheque amount nor has given any
reply.
09. To substantiate and to prove his case beyond all
reasonable doubt as per the verdict of the Hon’ble Apex
court in the case of Indian Bank Association and others
V/s Union of India and others, the sworn statement of the
complainant has been treated as affidavit evidence. In his
affidavit evidence the Complainant has replicated the
averments of the complaint and to corroborate his oral
testimony the Complainant has produced in all 5
documents as per Ex.P1 to P5. Ex.P1 is the cheque, Ex.P2
is the bank return memo. Ex.P3 is the demand notice,
8 C.C. 23037 / 2021Ex.P4 is the postal receipt Ex.P5 is the postal track
consignment. The Learned defense counsel has cross
examined PW1. However, the accused has failed to
adduced evidence on his behalf.
10. Before to scrutinize and appreciate the 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 date of presentation of the disputed
cheque, date of return memo, date of issuance of demand
notice and date of deliver confirmation report in the postal
consignment and presentation of complaint before this
court on 17.04.2021 it can be safely concluded that, only
after fulfillment of requirements of section 138 of NI Act
this complaint was presented.
9 C.C. 23037 / 2021
12. Section 118 & 139 of NI Act are two important
provisions and they provides for raising mandatory
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 in the relied
judgments , 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
10 C.C. 23037 / 2021to rebut the statutory presumptions under sections 118(a)
& 139 of NI Act.” Now, it is well established law that, the
presumption 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 as per postal track consignment
at Ex.P5 the demand notice on the accused was delivered
on 29.03.2021 and in spite of that he has not given any
reply and thereby it can be seen that the accused has failed
to put forth his defense in the begging itself by giving reply
notice. However, there is no bar for the accused to raise
defense and prove the same during the trial. During
entire cross examination of PW1 no where issuance of
cheque from account of accused and his signature at
11 C.C. 23037 / 2021Ex.P1(A) is neither disputed not has been denied.
Therefore, the Legal presumptions would works in favour of
complainant and against the accused. On perusal of entire
cross examination of PW1 it can be seen that, just a case of
the Complainant has been denied in toto and however, in
the last line of the cross examination it is suggested that,
towards cutting of 200 standing trees the accused has
given disputed cheque as a security. To substantiate and
prove the said fact as probable defense , the accused
neither has entered in the witness box nor has elicited any
material evidence from the mouth of PW1. By this defense
the accused is indirectly admitting the transaction of
purchase of standing trees from the Complainant for
cutting. Therefore, the Complainant stands prove his
beyond all reasonable doubts and on the other hand the
accused has failed to raise the probable defense and prove
the same on preponderance of probabilities. Hence, I
answered point No.1 in the Affirmative.
12 C.C. 23037 / 2021
POINT NO.2:
14. In view of the reasons stated and discussed above,
the complainant has proved the guilt of the accused
punishable under section 138 of N.I. Act It is worth to
note that, the offence is of the nature of civil wrong.
Hence, it is proper to award sentence of fine, instead of
awarding sentence of imprisonment. Accordingly, this
court proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
Acting under section 255 (2) of
Criminal Procedure Code, accused is
hereby convicted for the offence
punishable under section 138 of
Negotiable Instrument Act and
sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,10,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh Ten Thousand
only). In default, he shall undergo
simple imprisonment for 3 (Three)
months.
13 C.C. 23037 / 2021
Acting under section 357(1) of
code of criminal procedure, it is
ordered that an amount of
Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh only),
there from shall be paid to the
complainant as a compensation,
remaining fine 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 19th day of July 2025}.
(BHOLA PANDIT)
XX ACJM,
14 C.C. 23037 / 2021
ANNEXURE
List of witnesses examined on behalf of complainant:
P.W.1 Gopalaiah
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 Postal receipt - 2 Nos. Ex.P. 5 Postal track consignment
List of witnesses examined on behalf of accused:
Nil
List of documents produced on behalf of accused:
Nil
XX A.C.J.M. Bengaluru.
[ad_2]
Source link