Bangalore District Court
G.T.Sadasiva Reddy vs M. Sridhar on 28 July, 2025
KABC030135202022
Presented on : 21-02-2022
Registered on : 21-02-2022
Decided on : 28-07-2025
Duration : 3 years, 5 months, 7 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XXIII ACJM, BENGALURU
-: Present :-
Smt.Asha K.S., B.A.L, L.L.B.,
XXIII ACJM, BENGALURU,
C.C. No.4032/2022
Dated: the 28th day of July, 2025
Complainant :- Sri.G.T.Sadasiva Reddy,
S/o.Late.Thimma Reddy,
Aged about 68 years,
R/at No.796, Sir M.Visvesvaraya BDA
Layout, 1st Block, Near Ashrama,
Kengeri, Bengaluru-560060
Mob: 7483990648
Aadhar No.836386005644.
(By Sri.Jagadeeswar.J.., Advocate)
-V/s -
Accused :- Mr.M.Sridhar,
S/o.Late.K.H.Muniswamy Reddy,
Aged about 49 years,
R/at NO.238, Sri.Kaustabham,
8th Cross, Balaji HBCS,
Vajarahalli,
Bengaluru-560062.
Mob: 9483511769/9845011769
2
C.C.No.4032/2022
Also R/at
Mr.M.Sridhar,
S/o.Late.K.H.Muniswamy Reddy,
Aged about 49 years,
R/at No.64, 1st Cross, 1st Main,
7th Cross Road, Bank Colony,
BTM 2nd Stage, Bengaluru-560076.
Mob: 9483511769/9845011769
(By Sri.L.Devaraja., Advocate)
Offences complained of U/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Plea of the Accused Not Pleaded guilty.
Final Order Accused is Acquitted.
Date of Order 28.07.2025.
(Smt.Asha K.S,)
XXIII ACJM, Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
The complainant has filed the present complaint under
Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the accused for the
commission of an offense punishable under section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as under:-
“The complainant and accused are known to each
other from many years. In the month of September 2021,
accused had approached for a hand loan of Rs.10 lakhs for
3C.C.No.4032/2022
his business and family necessities. Accordingly the
complainant has paid Rs.10 lakhs to the accused on
12.09.2019 by way of cash and self cheques. The accused
also issued receipt/acknowledgment. The accused assured
to return the said amount in the end of December 2019. The
complainant has kept that amount in his savings bank
account and his daughter’s savings bank account and he
and his daughter were withdrawn the said amount and paid
to the accused.
It is further submits that, after August 2021, the
accused has not returned said amount as he promised.
When complainant has demanded for repayment, the
accused had issued post dated cheque bearing No.115666,
dated 21.09.2021 for Rs.6 lakhs and another bearing
No.115667, dated 21.09.2021 for Rs.4 lakhs, both cheques
were drawn on Canara Bank, Chikkathirupathi Branch, in
favour of complainant. On presentation of said cheques by
the complainant through his banker SBI Bank, Kengeri
Satellite Town branch, Bengaluru, cheques have been
returned for the reason “Drawers signature differs” on
29.10.2021.
3. Thereafter the complainant has issued legal
notice to the accused on 23.11.2021 and same has been
served on 24.11.2021 and 25.11.2021. Thereafter also
4
C.C.No.4032/2022
accused has not paid amount and not chosen to issue reply
notice.
4. After filing of complaint, cognizance was taken.
In pursuance of summons, accused appeared before the
Court and he had enlarged on bail. Substance of accusation
has been framed and contents of its read over to the
accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and he claimed to be
tried.
5. In order to prove his case complainant has
examined himself as PW.1 and got marked 14 documents
at Ex.P.1 to 14 on behalf of the complainant and one more
witness as PW-2. After closure of complainant evidence,
accused has been examined U/s.313 of Cr.PC and opted to
lead evidence. Accused has been examined as DW-1 and
documents marked at Ex.D.1 to D.09.
6. Thereafter arguments heard and perused written
arguments.
7. The following points arise for my determination: –
1) Whether the complainant has
made out all the ingredients of Sec.138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act to prove the
guilt of accused?
2) What Order?
5
C.C.No.4032/2022
8. On hearing the arguments and on perusal written
arguments and the materials placed on record, my answers
to: –
Point No.1:- In the Negative
Point No.2:- As per final order
for the following:-
REASONS
9. It is the case of complainant is that the accused and
complainant are known to each other and accused had
borrowed the hand loan amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and to
discharge the said liability, he had issued Ex.P.1 and P.2
cheques. On presentation said cheques have been returned
for the reasons “Drawers Signature Differs”. After issuance
of notice also the accused has not chosen to issue reply
notice and not repaid the amount. Thereafter, the
complainant has filed this complaint.
10. To attract Sec.138 of NI Act it is necessary to
fulfill the ingredients of said provision. I have carefully
perused the section 138 of of N.I.Act, it has three
ingredients which are as follows:
1. That there is a Legally enforceable debt,
2. That the cheque was drawn from the account of
bank for discharge in whole or any part of any
debt or other liability which pre-supposes a
legally enforceable debt.
6
C.C.No.4032/2022
3. That the cheque so issued had been returned
due to insufficiency of funds.
11. Keeping in view the ingredients of Sec.138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act. Now I proceed to reproduce the
Sec.139 and 118(a) of N.I.Act here itself.
12. Sec.139 of N.I.Act reads as follows “Presumes in
favor of holder, it shall be presumed unless the contrary is
proved, that the holder of cheque received the cheque, of the
nature referred to in Sec.138, for the discharge, in whole or
in part or any debt or other liability”.
13. Sec.118(a) reads as follows “Presumption as to
Negotiable Instrument Act until the contrary is proved, the
following presumption shall be made (a) of consideration-
that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for
consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has
been accepted endorse, negotiate or transferred, was
accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for
consideration”.
14. Keeping in view of the ingredients and provision
of Sec.139 and 118(a) of N.I.Act, now I proceed to discuss
the documents in the case. I am of the opinion that I need
not repeat the entire case of the complaint once again since
I have already stated the same at the beginning of this
judgment.
7
C.C.No.4032/2022
15. To prove his case, the complainant has examined
himself as PW-1 and produced 14 documents and same has
been marked as Ex.P.1 to P.14. The cheque as per Ex.P.1
and P2 are cheques and signature thereon as per Ex.P.1(a)
and P.2(a) Bank memo as per Ex.P.3 and P.4. Legal Notice
as per Ex.P.5. Postal Receipts as per Ex.P.6 and 7. Postal
acknowledgments as Ex.P.8 and P.9, Letter to bank as
Ex.P.10, Two bank statements as Ex.P.11 and P.12.
Certified copies of marked at Ex.P.13 and P.14 and
signatures as Ex.P.13(a) and 14.(a).
16. In the cross-examination of PW-1 he has deposed
that he was working in educational department and retired
in the year 1996. He was getting Rs.400/- to Rs.500/-
salary. He knows the Bank Manager Babu Reddy. He and
accused both were having account in Srinidhi Sowhardha
Co-op. Bank Ltd. He paid Rs.2 lakhs by way of cash and
Rs.6 lakhs and Rs.2 lakhs by way of self cheque to the
accused. He does not know that who has withdrawn
amount through two self cheques but he has handed over
those cheques to accused. He does not know that one
Ashwini Properties Pvt Ltd, Developer company has
withdrawn those cheques. He does not know about the reply
notice issued by the accused. Accused had approached for
hand loan on 12.09.2017 and he paid amount on the same
day. He had issued self cheque to the accused for Rs.6
lakhs and he paid Rs.2 lakhs of his own and Rs.2 lakhs
8
C.C.No.4032/2022
pertaining to his daughter. In the year 2019 there was no
money transaction between himself and accused and he
never paid amount to the accused in the year 2019. He is
not a tax payer.
17. He further deposed that accused had issued
cheques on 12.09.2017. He does not know about the
occupation of accused. There is no document to show that
he had issued self cheque to accused. Accused is not his
childhood friend or colleague or relative or his neighbor but
he knows the accused. He only given instructions to his
Advocate to prepare complaint. He knows that the accused
had borrowed amount in the bank also. He does not know
that who has filled the Ex.P.1 and P.2. There was no
agreement between himself and accused with regard to
alleged transaction. His wife has deposited Rs.20 lakhs in
the bank and he is getting pension of his wife.
There was no transaction between his daughter and
accused. Ex.P.11 and P.14 belongs to his daughter. As per
Ex.P.11 and 12, no amount has been transferred to accused
from his daughter’s account. His daughter has no
information about the withdrawal of amount as per Ex.P.14.
He denied other suggestions.
18. One Babu Reddy has been examined as PW-2 and
he has deposed that he knows the accused and
complainant, they were members of his bank. The
9
C.C.No.4032/2022
complainant has paid Rs.6 lakhs through his cheque and
Rs.2 lakhs through his daughter’s cheque and Rs.2 lakhs
through cash to the accused in his presence. There was a
Rs.6 lakh in the savings account of complainant and Rs.2
lakhs in the account of daughter of complainant and the
complainant has withdrawn said amount and paid to the
accused. The accused also assured to repay the said
amount within six months. Inspite of repeated demand by
the complainant and by him also accused has not chosen to
repay the amount to the complainant. In the month of
September 2021, the accused had issued cheques to the
complainant in his presence by filling.
19. In the cross-examination of PW-2, he has deposed
that he is working as General Manager in Srinidhi Souharda
Co-op Bank from 25 years. He has not furnished documents
regarding his designation. The accused had issued cheques
in favour of complainant in his cabin on 12.09.2017. The
accused had borrowed from his bank and repaid the same.
At that time also the accused had issued cheques to bank
for security purpose. He could not produced CCTV footages
of his cabin. He could not recall that whether he had
received cheque No.115665 to 115670 for security purpose,
at the time of sanctioning loan to the accused. He denied
other suggestions.
10
C.C.No.4032/2022
20. The accused has denied the case of complainant
and to prove his defence he has examined as DW-1. He has
deposed that he had borrowed amount of Rs.2 crore from
Srinidhi Souharda Co-op Bank in the year 2019 for
construction of house. At that time Babu Reddy was CEO of
said bank and he had received ten cheques for security
purpose. Due to his financial crisis, he could not pay EMI.
Thereafter the bank has conducted auction sale of his
building and recovery amount. Though he has requested for
return of his cheques, bank has not returned his cheques.
Babu Reddy has insisted to not to file complaint against the
bank. Thereafter the complainant has filed this complaint.
There was no transaction between complainant and himself
and he never issued cheque to the complainant. IN support
of his case he has produced 09 documents and same has
been marked as Ex.D.1 to D.9 Ex.D.1 is notice, Ex.D.2 is
postal receipt. Ex.D.3 is Simple Mortgage Deed. Ex.D.4 is
Sales Certificate. Ex.D.5 is Proceedings of Auction sale.
Ex.D.6 is sale certificate. Ex.D.7 is Certificate U/s.65-B of
Indian Evidence Act. Ex.D.8 is the Auction Sale proceedings
and Ex.D.9 is letter dated 20.03.2022.
21. In the cross-examination of DW-1 he has deposed
that he has studied up to P.U.C.. He had issued ten cheques
to Babu Reddy but there is no document with respect to
that aspect. He has not filed any complaint against the
11
C.C.No.4032/2022
bank. He denied the suggestion that he has borrowed
amount from the complainant to discharge his other debts.
22. It is the specific case of the complainant is that he had
paid Rs.10 lakhs to the accused and to discharge said
liability, accused had issued Ex.P.1 and 2. The accused has
denied the signatures and also issuance of cheques. The
accused has denied the entire case of complainant and he
has contended that he had issued cheques to one Babu
Reddy, who was the CEO of Srinidhi Souharda Co-op Bank
for availing loan for construction of house. The accused had
produced documents to show that he has availed loan from
Srinidhi Souharda Co-op Bank and he failed to repay the
said amount and bank has conducted auction sale and
recovered amount by selling property of accused. Ex.D.3
Simple Mortgage deed shows that the accused has
mortgaged his property and availed loan of Rs.2 crores on
06.06.2019. There was a loan transaction between the
accused and bank prior to 2019. In the year 2023 one
Jayalakshmi has purchased said property in the auction
sale. There is no dispute in that aspect.
23. The parties to the proceedings or any case, they
have to prove their case as per their pleadings with relevant
documents. Here the initial burden is on the complainant to
prove his case as per his pleading. In the complaint, the
complainant has narrated he paid amount of Rs.10 lakhs on
12
C.C.No.4032/2022
12.09.2019 by way of self cheques and accused also issued
receipt/acknowledgment. Here no such receipt or
acknowledgment has been placed before the Court. It is
further stated that amount was in the savings account of
complainant and his daughter and complainant and his
daughter withdrawn said amount. During the cross-
examination of PW-1 he has deposed different version that
he had paid Rs.2 lakhs through cash and Rs.6 lakhs and
Rs.2 lakhs through self cheques. The complainant has
produced bank statement and it shows that the
complainant has withdrawn amount from his account.
Ex.P.12 is bank statement daughter of complainant and
that document shows that Rs.2 lakhs amount has been
withdrawn through cheque. There is no entry in the bank
statement to show that the accused has withdrawn amount
from the account. Ex.P.13 and P.14 are the counter files of
cheques. Ex.P.13 is the cheque dated 12.09.2017 and
Ex.P.12 bank statement shows that said amount of Rs.6
lakhs has been withdrawn through cheque by the
complainant. Here it is necessary to discuss that whether
the complainant has paid through cheques or by way of
cash. As stated above in the complaint the complainant has
deposed that he had issued self cheques to accused and
accused has withdrawn amount in the bank. The counter
files of cheque shows that the complainant only withdrawn
13
C.C.No.4032/2022
amount and in the Ex.P.13 and 14 there is a signature of
M.Sridhar but the accused has denied that signature.
24. In the complaint and evidence, the complainant
has stated that in the month of September 2017 accused
had approached for hand loan of Rs.10 lakhs and the
complainant has paid amount on 12.09.2019. In the cross-
examination of PW-1 dated 15.05.2023 he has deposed that
there was no transaction between himself and accused in
the year 2019 and he never paid any amount to the accused
in the year 2019. He also deposed that on 12.09.2017
accused approached for hand loan and on the same day he
paid amount to the accused. The accused had issued
cheques in the month of August 2021. It is totally contrary
to the averments of complaint. Because as per complaint,
the complainant has paid amount to the accused on
12.09.2019 but in the evidence he has deposed that he paid
amount on 12.09.2017. It is contrary to each other.
25. In the complaint, the complainant has narrated
that accused had assured to repay the amount in the end of
December 2019 but accused had issued cheque dated
21.09.2021 in the month of August 2021. If accused
assured to repay the amount in the month of December
2019, then what is the necessity for the complainant to wait
till August 2021. There is no explanation from the
complainant for such a long back. As per complainant
14
C.C.No.4032/2022
amount was in his account and his daughter’s account, in
such circumstances there was no hurdle for the
complainant to transfer amount to the accused through
bank only. Moreover as per complainant he paid amount to
the accused in the presence of bank manager who has
examined as PW-2. In such circumstances even PW-2 would
have advised the complainant to pay amount through
account. As discussed above as per complainant he paid
amount to the accused on 12.09.2017 in the presence of
PW-2. But PW-2 has deposed that complainant has paid
amount to the accused in his presence on 12.09.2017 and
on the same day itself accused has issued cheques to the
complainant in his presence. As per complaint averments,
accused had issued cheques in favour of complainant in the
month of August 2021 and cheque date 21.09.2021 but
PW.2 has deposed that accused had issued cheques on
12.09.2017 itself. All these aspects show that PW-1 and 2
are deposing contrary to each other with regard to date of
alleged transaction and date of issuance cheques. If
transaction is genuine, PW-1 and 2 were present then
definitely both should have deposed same evidence but here
PW-1 and 2 both were deposed different version with regard
to date of alleged lending money and issuance of cheques. It
is totally contrary to each other and creates serious doubt
regarding transaction.
15
C.C.No.4032/2022
26. As per complainant, alleged transaction taken
place in the bank and in the presence of PW-2, who is bank
manager. In such circumstances how could PW-2 has
forgotten the date of alleged transaction. As discussed above
as per complaint accused had issued post dated cheque
dated 21.09.2021 in the month of August 2021 but PW-2
has deposed that the accused had issued cheques on
12.09.2017. All these aspects creates doubt regarding
alleged transaction. It also probablizes that accused might
have issued cheques to the bank manager for other
transaction and in turn he might have handed over the
cheques to complainant.
27. As per Ex.D.1 reply notice accused has taken
contention that accused had executed sale deed with
respect to one flat in sunshine apartment at Sarjapur in
favour of cousin sister of PW-2 namely Pavithra G.J. The
accused had availed loan in the bank and at that time he
had issued cheques to the PW-2. The accused has not only
taken this defence but he has examined as DW-1 and
deposed the same in his evidence also. In support of his
contention he has produced documents also. Ex.D.3 is the
Simple Mortgage Deed executed by accused in favour of
Srinidhi Souharda Co-op Bank Ltd on 06.06.2019. This
document shows that accused has availed loan in the said
bank. Ex.D.3 is the sale certificate it shows that the accused
had purchased property on 08.03.2002 and he had availed
16
C.C.No.4032/2022
loan of Rs.2 crores on said property on 06.06.2019. Due to
default in repayment bank has conducted auction sale with
respect to said property. It shows that accused was in need
of money in the year 2019 and availed loan in the bank and
he had no necessity to borrow amount from the
complainant in the year 2017 or 2019 as alleged in the
complaint. As per documents produced by the accused he
had availed loan of Rs. 2 crores from the bank. In such
circumstances what is the necessity for the accused to
approach hand loan of Rs.10 lakhs from the complainant.
Moreover the complainant himself is not sure about alleged
date of transaction and his own admission is contrary to his
own pleadings. PW-2 evidence also contrary to evidence of
PW-1 and pleadings. All these aspects shows that accused
had issued cheques for loan availed in the bank and PW-2
has misused said cheques. Admission given by the PW-1
and 2 with regard to alleged transaction supports the
contention of accused. At the earliest stage itself the
accused has taken his defence and proved same by
producing documents.
28. Advocate for complainant vehemently argued that
there is a signature of accused in Ex.P.13 and 14 and
accused only withdrawn said amount from the bank. It is
true that there is a signature of one Sridhar in the Ex.P.13
and 14 but very same documents show that it is self
cheques. Self cheques means the person who is having
17
C.C.No.4032/2022
account can withdraw through his own cheque. It clears
that the complainant withdrawn amount from the bank.
Moreover PW-1 himself admits that he only withdrawn
amount from the bank. It probablizes that PW-2 being a
bank manager might have obtained signature of accused on
the said cheque or complainant might have forged the said
signature or created. Moreover the accused has denied
those signatures. It is necessary to discuss that Ex.P.13 and
14 are self cheques, in such circumstances what is the
necessity for the complainant to take signature of accused
on those cheques. If really he was an intention to lend
amount through cheque, then there was no hurdle for him
to issue cheque in favour of accused. Here there is no
explanation from the complainant that why he had not
issued cheque in favour of accused and why he has
obtained signature of accused on cheques. Admittedly
complainant and accused are account holders of Srinidhi
Souharda Co-op Bank Ltd and PW-2 is CEO and Manager of
said bank. It probablizes that PW-1 and 2 colluded with
each other and they might have obtained signature of
accused on the cheque or they might have forged the
signature of accused on the cheques.
29. During the cross-examination of PW-2, he admits
that while granting loans bank used to collect cheques from
the customers. It shows that accused also issued cheques to
bank, when he has availed loan of Rs.2 crores from the said
18
C.C.No.4032/2022
bank. The accused has produced proceedings of auction
sale conducted by the bank and other documents but there
is no recital with regard to return of cheques to the accused,
at the time of conducting auction sale. As stated above PW.2
himself admits that bank has received cheques from the
bank for security purpose at the time of sanctioning of loan,
if that is so, when he has returned said cheques to accused.
PW-2 being a CEO and bank manager he should have
disclosed cheque numbers also but here PW-2 did not
disclosed the cheque numbers of cheques issued by the
accused in favour of bank. As per proceedings of auction
sale also, bank has not returned cheques to the accused. All
these aspects clearly shows that the accused had issued
cheques to the PW-2 for availing loan in the bank and due
to dispute between the PW-2 and accused regarding
property sale, he has misused the cheques. It also shows
that the PW-2 and complainant colluded with each other,
they have filed this complainant to harass the accused. If
really transaction is genuine then definitely PW-2 would
have disclosed the cheque number of accused, issued to
him at the time of availing loan or he would have returned
those cheques to the accused. Admittedly bank has not
returned any cheque to the accused and not disclosed the
cheque numbers also. Intentionally PW-2 has not furnished
CCTV footages of his chamber also. All these aspects
19
C.C.No.4032/2022
probablizes that PW-1 and 2 have misused the cheques of
accused issued to bank.
30. In this case the accused has specifically denied
his signatures in cheques i.e., Ex.P.1 and 2 and also
Ex.P.13 and P.14. Bank endorsement also shows that
cheques returned for the reason “Drawers Signature
Differs”. It supports the defence of accused and probablizes
that the accused had issued blank cheques for security
purpose to the bank, while availing loan. In such
circumstance burden is on the complainant to prove that
signature found in Ex.P.1 and P.2 is pertaining to accused.
Because during the cross-examination of PW-1 he has
deposed that he does not know that who has filled cheques
and who has signed as Sridhar in the cheques. It also shows
that the accused did not signed in the presence of
complainant. The bank endorsements show that cheques
returned for the reason Drawers Signature Differs.
Thereafter also the complainant has not chosen to send the
cheques for expert opinion to ascertain that whether
signatures found in Ex.P.1 and P.2 are pertaining to
accused or not. Here no such effort from the complainant.
When there is a specific dispute regarding signature then
complainant has to prove that aspect. Here the complainant
has fails to prove his burden.
20
C.C.No.4032/2022
31. The complainant has not proved his case as per
his pleadings. The accused has issued cheques to bank for
security purpose from 2016 to 2019 and same has been
admitted by the PW-2, who is bank manager. There are no
material to show that the accused had borrowed amount of
Rs.10 lakhs from the complainant. The complainant himself
is not sure about the date of alleged transaction and he has
deposed contrary to his own pleadings with regard to date of
alleged transaction and also issuance of cheques. PW-2 also
deposed contrary to evidence of PW-1. Hence evidence of
PW-1 and 2 not helpful to the case of the complainant. As
stated above, the complainant has not approached the court
with clean hands and he has intentionally suppressed the
facts.
32. In the Judgment reported in Crl appeal 939/2010
in Yeshwanthkumar Vs.Shanthkumar N. In that also
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka held when there is no
clarity with regard to date of alleged transaction in the
complaint, in such circumstances it creates doubt regarding
transaction. In this case the complainant has narrated in
his complaint that he paid amount of Rs.10 lakhs on
12.09.2019 but in the evidence he has depoesd that he paid
amount on 12.09.2017. PW-1 has narrated and deposed
that the accused had issued cheques in the month of
August 2021 but PW-2 has deposed that the accused had
issued cheques in favour of the complainant on 12.09.2017.
21
C.C.No.4032/2022
It shows that there is no clarity with regard to date of
alleged transaction. When complainant has no clarity about
the date of alleged transaction, then definitely it creates
doubt regarding transaction. Hence ratio held in above
authority is applicable to the case on hand.
33. Regarding the burden of the accused to rebut the
presumptions in N.I Act the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel Vs State Of Gujarat in Crl.A.No.508
OF 2019 held:
“16.On the aspects relating to preponderance of
probabilities, the accused has to bring on record such
facts and such circumstances which may lead the
Court to conclude either that the consideration did
not exist or that its non-existence was so probable
that a prudent man would, under the circumstances
of the case, act upon the plea that the consideration
did not exist. This Court has, time and again,
emphasized that though there may not be sufficient
negative evidence which could be brought on record
by the accused to discharge his burden, yet mere
denial would not fulfill the requirements of rebuttal as
envisaged under Section 118 and 139 of the NI Act…”
34. In the case on hand the accused has disputed
the transaction and to prove his defence he has produced
documents. Admissions of PW-1 and 2 also supports the
defence of accused and it also show that there was no
existence of legally recoverable debt. An essential ingredient
of Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is that cheque in
question must have been issued towards a legally or
liability. Sec.118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act
envisage certain presumptions. Under Sec.118 a
22
C.C.No.4032/2022
presumption shall be raised regarding consideration, date,
acceptance, transfer, endorsements and regarding the
holder in due course of Negotiable Instruments. Even under
Sec.139 a rebuttal presumption shall be raised that the
cheque in question was issued regarding discharge of a
legally enforceable debt. These presumptions are mandatory
presumptions that are required to be raised in case of
Negotiable Instruments. These presumptions are not
conclusive presumptions, but are rebuttable. As discussed
above accused has denied the issuance of cheques and
signatures also. Endorsement issused by the bank also
shows that drawers signagure differs. Thereafter also the
complainant has not chosen to take assistnace of expert to
prove that signatures found in cheques belongs to accused.
When there is a dispute regarding issuance of cheque and
signature, complainant is not entitled for presumption
available under the Act. Moreover the accused has proved
his defence and rebutted the presumption by producing
document and by leading evidence.
35. In the case on hand the accused has rebutted the
presumption by producing documents and eliciting truth
from the PW-1 and 2 during cross-examination. it shows
that the transaction was pertaining to loan between accused
and bank and there was no transaction between the parties
as alleged in the complaint. As discussed above, the
complainant has not sure about the date of alleged
23
C.C.No.4032/2022
transaction and he has intentionally suppressed the
material facts. The accused has proved that there is no
legally recoverable debt or liability.
36. Judgment reported in 2024 (1) AKR 649 in the
case of N.Padmavathi Vs.D.Rajanna case Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka held that it was highly improbable that
one could advance huge sum of Rs.8 lakhs to the accused
by cash. In the case on hand also amount involved is
Rs.10,00,000/- and it is huge amount. In such
circumstances there was no necessity to the complainant to
lend such a huge amount by way of cash. The accused and
complainant both were having account in the same bank
and bank statement of complainant shows that he
transacted with others through cheques and bank but he
has not explained that why he has lend such huge amount
through cash to the complainant. This attitude of
complainant is not an attitude of ordinary prudent man.
This version of complainant is not at all acceptable one and
creates doubt. Hence ratio held in above authority is
applicable to case on hand.
37. In the judgment reported in (2009) 2 SCC 513,
(Kumar Exports V/s. Sharma Carpets), in that Hon’ble Apex
Court held that the presumption available to the
complainant U/Sec.138 of NI Act is not conclusive but
rebuttable. To rebut the statutory presumptions an accused
24
C.C.No.4032/2022
is not expected to prove his defense beyond reasonable
doubt as is expected of the complainant in a criminal trial,
the standard of proof for doing so is that of “preponderance
of probabilities”. The accused can rely on the materials
submitted by the complainant in order to raise such defense
and it is conceivable that in some cases the accused may
not need to adduce evidence of his own. The court need not
insist in every case that the accused should disprove the
non-existence of consideration and debt by leading direct
evidence because the existence of negative evidence is
neither possible nor contemplated. The complainant has
fails to prove his case. Hence the ratio held in above
authority applicable to case on hand.
38. In the authority reported in 2001 SC 2895 in
K.N.Beena V/s. Muniyappan in that Hon’ble Apex Court
held that as per Sec.139 of NI Act the court has to presume,
unless the contrary was proved, that the holder of the
cheque received the cheque for discharge in whole or in part
of a debt or liability. In this case the very existence of
liability itself has not been proved. The complainant has
fails to prove his initial burden. Though there is a
presumption U/Sec.139 of NI Act but it can be rebuttable.
In this case the accused has rebutted the presumption by
eliciting truth from the mouth of PW-1 and 2 in the cross
examination and proved that there is no existence of any
legally recoverable debt or liability.
25
C.C.No.4032/2022
39. The complainant has fails to prove that accused
had issued cheques towards discharge of his legally
recoverable debt or liability. The complainant has also fails
to prove that on which date he had lend amount to the
accused, he has stated different dates of alleged transaction.
The accused has proved that there is no legally recoverable
debt or liability. It is true that accused can prove his
allegation by applying the principle preponderance of
probabilities. On the aspects relating to preponderance of
probabilities, the accused has brought such facts and such
circumstances which may lead the Court to conclude either
that the consideration did not exist or that its non-existence
was so probable that a prudent man would, under the
circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that the
consideration did not exist.
40. In this case the complainant is an educated
person and he knows the money transaction also in such
circumstances why should he has paid alleged amount by
way of cash. The complainant has not explained that why
he has lend such a huge amount through cash. There is no
answer by the complainant that why he has lend such a
huge amount without expecting interest from the accused.
All these aspects creates doubt regarding the transaction
between the parties. All these aspects show that the
accused had issued cheques for his hand loan from bank.
26
C.C.No.4032/2022
The PW-2, who is bank manager and complainant have
misused the cheques and filed this complaint. The
documents produced by the accused clearly shows that
there was a loan transaction between the accused and bank
and not between the parties to the case. Hence, in view of
the above discussion, this court is of the opinion that the
complainant has failed to discharge his burden.
41. On careful perusal of materials on record I am of
the opinion that there is no legally recoverable debt or
liability. The accused has successfully rebutted the
presumption by entering into witness and by eliciting many
material contradictions in the cross examination of PW1 and
2. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the
version of accused appears to be true. The ingredients
required to fulfill Sec.138 of NI Act also not proved. Hence, I
hold that there are no materials available on record to
conclude that accused has committed an offence U/Sec.138
of NI Act, hence I answered Point no.1 in the Negative.
42. Point No.2:- In view of the aforesaid reasons, I
proceed to pass the following :-
-: ORDER :-
Acting U/Sec/278(1) of
B.N.S.S. accused is hereby acquitted
for the offence P/U/Sec.138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act.
27
C.C.No.4032/2022
Bail bond and surety bond stands
canceled.
(Dictated to stenographer directly on my computer, after
clerical additions by him, script revised, corrected and
pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 28 th day of July
2025)(Smt.Asha K.S,)
XXIII ACJM, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
1) List of Witnesses examined for complainant:-
PW.1 : Sri.G.T.Sadasiva Reddy
PW.2 : Babureddy.
2) List of documents marked on behalf of complainant: –
Ex.P.1 & 2 : Cheque.
Ex.P.1(a) &2a : Signatures of accused,
Ex.P.3 & 4 : Bank Memo,
Ex.P.5 : Legal Notice,
Ex.P.6 & 7 : Postal receipts,
Ex.P.8 & 9 : Postal Acknowledgments.
Ex.P.10 : Letter dated 24.10.2024
issued to Srinidhi Souharda
Co.op Bank.
Ex.P.11 & 12 : Two Bank statements.
Ex.P.13 & 14 : Certified copies of cheques.
Ex.P.13(a) & 14a: Signatures.
3) List of witness examined on behalf of the Accused :-
DW-1 : M.Sridhar
4) List of documents marked on behalf of the Accused:-
Ex.D.1 : Notice dtd:20.03.2022.
Ex.D.2 : Postal Receipt.
28
C.C.No.4032/2022
Ex.D.3 : Simple Mortgage Deed.
Ex.D.4 : Sale Certificate.
Ex.D.5 : Auction Proceedings.
Ex.D.6 : Sale Certificate.
Ex.D.7 : Certificate U/s.65-B of IEA.
Ex.D.8 : Auction Proceedings.
Ex.D.9 : Letter to Bank dtd 20.03.2022.
(Smt.Asha K.S,)
XXIII ACJM, Bengaluru.