Bangalore District Court
Vijay Kumar H vs Rekha N on 12 August, 2025
KABC010082942022
IN THE COURT OF THE LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-65) AT BENGALURU.
Dated this 12th day of August, 2025
-: P R E S E N T :-
Smt. MALA N.D.,
BAL, LL.M
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
CCH-65, BENGALURU CITY.
Crl. Appeal No.322/2022
APPELLANT:- : Sri.Vijay Kumar.H
S/o Late Huchaiah,
Aged about 50 years,
R/at No.180, 4th Cross,
Vivekananda Block,
Palace Guttahalli,
Malleshwaram,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri. VLK., Advocate)
Vs.
2
Crl. Appeal No.322/2022
RESPONDENT :- : Smt. Rekha.N,
W/o Lokesh.P,
Aged about 37 years,
R/at No.146, 4th Cross,
Vivekananda Block
Palace Guttahalli,
Malleshwaram,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri. SRK., Advocate)
JUDGMENT
Appellant has filed this appeal u/s 374(3) of Code of
Criminal Procedure assailing the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence passed in C.C.No.361/2020 dated
18/12/2021 on the file of 4th Addl. Judge, Court of Small
Causes (SCCH-6), Bengaluru.
2. Rank of the parties is referred to as per their
ranks assigned before the trial court.
3. The facts of the case leading to this appeal
may be summarized as under;
3
Crl. Appeal No.322/2022
The respondent herein is the complainant before
the trial court, she has filed a private complaint under
Section 200 of Cr.P.C, alleging the offence committed by
the accused punishable under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instrument Act (herein after referred as N.I.
Act). According to the complainant, accused is her
known person availed a credit facility to the tune of
Rs.1,50,000/- on 05/04/2019 by assuring that he will
return the amount within six months, subsequently for
repayment of the said amount he issued cheque bearing
No.0011993 dated 20/11/2019 for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-
drawn on Sri. Laxminarayana Co-operative Bank Ltd.,
Bengaluru, upon its presentation for collection of amount
through her banker, the same was dishonored for the
reason of funds insufficient as per endorsement dated
21/11/2019, as such the complainant got issued statutory
notice on 03/12/2019 calling upon the accused to repay
4
Crl. Appeal No.322/2022
her amount, same was duly served on the accused and
said statutory notice was replied by the accused,
therefore after due compliance of ingredients of Section
138 of Negotiable Instrument Act filed a private complaint
against the accused. The trial court took cognizance and
after going through the materials, found prima facie case
against accused for the offences punishable under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, registered
criminal case and issued summons.
4. Before the trial court, accused/appellant
appeared, got enlarged on bail. The substance of
accusation was recorded, he claimed trial. The
complainant got examined himself as PW.1 and got
marked in all 10 documents from Exs.P.1 to P.10 and
closed her side. After closure of evidence of
complainant the statement of accused u/s 313 of Code of
Criminal Procedure has been recorded. The accused
5
Crl. Appeal No.322/2022
himself examined as DW.1. Trial court after hearing
arguments on both sides and on appreciation of oral and
documentary evidence, found accused committed an
offence punishable u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act,
convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,55,000/-
(Rupees One lakh fifty five thousand only), in default to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment,
accused approached this court urging the following
grounds;
a) The impugned judgment is contrary to law and
evidence, order of the trial court is improper and
incorrect, trial court committed grave error in holding the
accused guilty of the offences punishable under Section
138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
(b) The trial court has hurriedly proceeded to
pass a judgment of conviction even though the appellant
6
Crl. Appeal No.322/2022
has obtained sum of Rs.50,000/- in the year 2017 and at
the time of lending loan amount complainant had
obtained a blank cheque from the accused, per contra
accused has already paid entire amount in the year
2017, however, trial court has not appreciated the said
aspect.
(c) The complainant in the absence of proving the
liability of the accused beyond reasonable doubt the
burden of rebutting the evidence arises, in the instance
case, complainant has failed to establish the legally
recoverable debt or liability of the accused.
(d) The trial court has lost sight of the fact that
there is no evidence brought on record by the
complainant as to show how she arrived at a sum of
Rs.1,50,000/- to fix liability on the accused.
(e) The impugned judgment has resulted in gross
miscarriage of justice.
7
Crl. Appeal No.322/2022
On these grounds the accused prayed to set
aside the judgment dated 18/12/2021 passed in
C.C.No.361/2020 by the 4th Addl. Judge, Court of Small
Causes (SCCH-6), Bengaluru.
6. After registration of the appeal, notice was
issued. The respondent appeared through her counsel.
The trial court records have been secured.
7. Heard arguments on both sides and perused
the available materials on record.
8. The points do arise for my consideration are
as under;
1) Whether cheque at Ex.P.1 was issued
by the accused in favour of the
complainant towards discharge of
legally recoverable debt or liability as
alleged in the complaint?
2) Whether trial court is correct in holding
that, accused has committed offence
punishable u/s 138 of Negotiable
Instrument Act?
8
Crl. Appeal No.322/2022
3) Whether there is legal infirmity in the
impugned judgment, which requires
interference of this court ?
4) What Order?
9. On re-appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence, my findings on the aforesaid points as
follows:-
Point No.1: In the Affirmative;
Point No.2: In the Affirmative;
Point No.3: In the Negative;
Point No.4: As per final order,
for the following:
REASONS
10. POINTS No.1 & 2:- These points are
interrelated, hence they are taken up together for
common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts
and evidence.
9
Crl. Appeal No.322/2022
11. The learned counsel for the accused
canvassed in his written arguments that the trial court
hurriedly proceeded to pass a judgment and conviction
even though accused obtained only a sum of
Rs.50,000/- in the year 2017 and at the time of receiving
the loan amount complainant had obtained blank
cheque from him, the trial court has not appreciated fact
that he paid entire loan amount in the year 2017 itself
and erroneously passed the judgment of conviction
which is incorrect despite the fact that the complainant
has failed to establish the existence of legally
recoverable debt or liability and passed the judgment of
conviction on the basis of probability, assumption and
presumption.
12. It is further canvassed on behalf of the
appellant/accused that, the disputed cheque was issued
only for the purpose of security while taking the previous
10
Crl. Appeal No.322/2022
loan as mentioned supra, as such the trial court without
proper verification of the above facts passed the
impugned judgment, it needs interference at the hands
of this court of appeal. There is no legal liability on the
accused to discharge the alleged loan transaction, the
complainant failed to discharge the burden of proving
lending loan to the accused and the cheque was issued
by the accused towards discharge of the legally
recoverable debt, judgment of the trial court is not
maintainable in the eye of law or on the facts and
accused deserves acquittal.
13. Similarly, the learned counsel for the
complainant canvassed that, the trial court has rightly
concluded that the cheque in question was issued
towards discharge of debt or liability, when accused has
admitted signature on the cheque which is subject matter
of the case in question and when once accused admits
11
Crl. Appeal No.322/2022
the signature in the cheque he has no other option or
defence and the same has been up held by the Hon’ble
High court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in several cases, he
draws the attention of the court towards various
admissions during the cross-examination of Pw-1 by the
accused, it is further contended that there is absolutely
no cogent and convincing evidence to support the
version of the accused to the effect that the disputed
cheque was issued as a security while availing loan of
Rs.50,000/- only and there is no liability and blank signed
cheque so taken was misused by the complainant.
14. It was further submitted that, as there are no
sufficient funds in the account of accused, in order to
save himself from the clutches of provisions of Section
138 of Negotiable Instrument Act this appeal is filed.
Therefore it is submitted that the judgment of trial court is
proper both in eye of law and on facts, it does not require
12
Crl. Appeal No.322/2022
any interference by this court. Accordingly it is
canvassed that the appeal deserves dismissal.
15. In the back drop of rival contentions, this court
has meticulously considered the complaint averments,
documents placed by the complainant along with oral
testimony and defense evidence placed by both the
parties. Before proceedings further, it is relevant to
reassert preposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble
Apex court in connection with the cheque bounce cases.
In the latest decision reported in AIR 2010 SC 1898 in
the case of Rangappa Vs. Mohan, the Hon’ble court
pleased to held in para No.9 that;
“Ordinarily in cheque bounce cases,
what the courts have to consider is
whether the ingredients of the offence
enumerated in Sec.138 of the Act have
been met, if so, whether the accused
was able to rebut the statutory
presumption contemplated by Sec.139
of the Act”.
13
Crl. Appeal No.322/2022
The Hon’ble Court observed that, the presumptions
U/s.139 of Negotiable Instrument Act is a presumption of
law, it is not a presumption of fact. This presumption has
to be raised by the court in all cases once the factum of
dishonour is established. The onus of proof to rebut this
presumption lies on the accused. The standard of rebuttal
evidence depends on the facts and circumstances of
each case. The mere explanation is not enough to rebut
this presumption of law, as reported in AIR 2001 SC
3897; Hiten P:. Dalal V/s. Bratinderanath Banerjee and
(2006) 6 SCC 39; M.S.Narayan Menon alias Mani
V/s.State of Kerala and another and ILR 2009 KAR 1633;
Kumar Exports V/s. Sharma Carpets.
16. As per the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex court, in
a case of this nature, court shall consider the compliance
14
Crl. Appeal No.322/2022
of ingredients of the offence punishable U/s.138 of
Complainant has produced following documents;
1. Ex.P.1 cheque
2. Ex.P.1(a) Signature of the accused
3. Ex.P.2 bank endorsement
4. Ex.P.3 legal notice
5. Ex.P.4&5 two postal receipts
6. Ex.P.6 postal cover
7. Ex.P.7&8 two postal acknowledgments
8. Ex.P.9 is another receipt
9. Ex.P.10 reply
Complaint filed on 09/01/2020.
Perusal of these documents show that, complainant
has presented the cheques within validity period of 3
months. Cheques returned unpaid with banker’s memo
for the reason “funds insufficient”. Within one month from
the date of bank endorsements, legal notice has been
issued. After expiry of 15 days period to comply the
terms of notice, present complaint filed within one month
from the date of cause of action. The accused has not
15
Crl. Appeal No.322/2022
disputed the signature present on the disputed cheques
and also admitted that, cheques in question belong to
the bank account maintained by him. Therefore, it is
claimed by the complainant that, legal presumptions
enshrined U/s.139 and 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act
could be raised in his favour, which includes the
existence of legally enforceable debt or liability.
17. It is worth to note that, the accused has not
disputed nor denied the issuance of the subject cheque.
Hence, initial statutory presumption attached to the
cheque as per Section 118(a) and 139 of N.I.Act has to
be raised in favour of the complainant. Section 139 of
N.I.Act reads as under;
Sec.139. Presumption in favour of holder.
–It shall be presumed, unless the
contrary is proved, that the holder of a
cheque received the cheque of the nature
referred to in section138 for the
discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt
or other liability.
16
Crl. Appeal No.322/2022
18. In so far as the payment of the amount by the
complainant in the context of the cheque having been
signed by the accused, the presumption for passing of
consideration would arise as provided U/s.118(a) of
N.I.Act, which reads as under;
Sec.118. Presumptions as to negotiable
instruments.–Until the contrary is
proved, the following presumptions 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, indorsed, negotiated or
transferred, was accepted, indorsed,
negotiated or transferred for
consideration;
The above noted provisions are explicit to the
effect that such presumptions would remain, until the
contrary is proved. In the case on hand, it is clear that,
signature on the cheque having been admitted, a
presumption shall be raised under Section 139 of the
17
Crl. Appeal No.322/2022
N.I.Act that the cheque was issued in discharge of debt
or liability. The question to be looked into is as to
whether any probable defence was raised by the
accused.
19.The next point for consideration is whether the
accused has placed cogent material on record sufficient
to rebut the statutory presumption? In a case of this
nature, the defence of accused could be gathered from
the reply notice. Plea of defence, suggestions and
admissions in the cross-examination of P.W.1. The
contentions taken in the reply notice acquires more
credibility, as it is the first and foremost opportunity to the
accused to place his defence by explaining the
circumstances under which the disputed cheque reached
the custody of the complainant. Here in this case,
service of legal notice is admitted and the same has
been replied by the accused denying the entire case of
18
Crl. Appeal No.322/2022
complainant by setting up a defense that he had availed
loan of Rs.50,000/- in cash in the month of June 2017
from the complainant and as a matter of security he had
issued a cheque to the complainant which was not
returned to him under the pretext of misplace, thereafter
complainant misused the said cheque to initiate legal
proceedings against him.
20. As stated above it is the only defense of the
accused before the trial court that he had availed loan of
Rs.50,000/- in cash from the complainant in the month
of June 2017 and has already repaid the entire amount,
however, it is admitted that, he had issued a blank
signed cheque to the complainant as a security to the
loan availed by him and the same was not returned
under the pretext of misplace which was misused to file
this false complaint against him. In support of his
version, accused though examined himself as D.W.1 and
19
Crl. Appeal No.322/2022
reiterated his defense, failed to substantiate his version
by producing cogent documents. Except denial, nothing
has been placed before the trial court by the accused to
establish that his blank signed cheque which was given
as security was not returned by the complainant and in
turn misused to initiate legal proceedings against him.
No police complaint is forth coming to show that
accused has taken legal steps to recover his signed
blank cheque issued as security for his previous loan
amount. Thereby accused failed to establish his
defense before the trial court, consequently he failed to
disprove that there was no legally enforceable debt
existed as on the date of issuance of cheque. From this
defense it can be noticed that, accused had the
knowledge that the complainant was possessing his
cheque and it was not returned inspite of repeated
request and demand, if this version of accused is to be
20
Crl. Appeal No.322/2022
believed as genuine at the same time, question arises
why accused has not taken any legal action against
P.W.1 for not returning his cheque even after payment of
his loan amount of Rs.50,000/-. Thus no explanation or
proper reasons were assigned in this regard and there
is no attempt by the accused at least to request the bank
authorities to stop the payment, when no such preventive
measures are taken, it cannot be said that complainant
has misused his cheque which was given as security as
no ordinary person keep quiet even after giving signed
blank cheque and paper to third persons, as such the
trial court right in rejecting the contention of the accused
that there is no legally enforceable debt.
21. On the contrary, the complainant in support of
her case has furnished signed cheque along with
endorsement which are corroborating with his case as
per Ex.P.1 and P.2 Therefore defense of the accused
21
Crl. Appeal No.322/2022
that he availed loan of Rs.50,000/- cash in the month of
June 2017 and has already repaid the same to the
complainant by way of cash is without any corroborative
evidence.
22. In this scenario, this Court has appreciated
the evidence placed before the trial court to analyze the
grounds raised by the accused person. Section 106 of
the Indian Evidence Act casts burden on the person who
asserts the fact which is within his special knowledge.
The N.I.Act is special statute entitle the accused to
rebut the presumption. Except taking bare contention,
accused person has not placed iota of evidence to
show the previous transactions and repayment of the
loan amount. To put it other way, except self serving
statement, the accused has not placed any cogent and
material evidence to establish the financial transaction
with the complainant and issuance of the subject
22
Crl. Appeal No.322/2022
cheque towards security to the said loan. Therefore, this
court is hesitant to believe this unsupported defence of
the accused.
23. This proposition of law is laid down in the
Hon’ble Apex court relied on the decision reported in,
2001 CRI.L.J 4745 (Supreme Court), between
K.N.Beena Vs. Muniyappan, it is held that;
” Negotiable Instrument Act -S- 138, 139,
118- cheque dishonour complaint-
Burden of proving that cheque had not
been issued for any debt or liability – is
on the accused – Denial/averments in
reply by accused are not sufficient to shift
burden of proof on to the complainant-
Accused has to prove in trail by leading
cogent evidence that there was no debt
or liability – setting aside conviction on
basis of some formal evidence led by
accused – Not proper. ”
In this view of the matter, the formal evidence led
by the accused is not sufficient to prove his defense.
23
Crl. Appeal No.322/2022
24. It is the defense of the accused that, he had
given signed blank cheque to the complainant and the
same is misused to file this false complaint. The
complainant has denied this contention. No cogent
evidence is placed in support of this contention of the
accused that, disputed cheque are security cheque.
Even for the sake of arguments, if we consider the
contention of the accused that, the cheque were issued
for the security purpose is concerned, the Hon’ble courts
have laid down in the plethora of decisions that, the
cheque issued for security also attracts Section 138 of
N.I.Act. In the decision reported in 2015 (4) KCCR 2881
(SC) in a case of T.Vasanthkumar V/s.Vijayakumari
wherein the Hon’ble Apex court pleased to observe that,
“NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT, 1881-
Section 138 and 139 – acquittal- If justified-
Accused not disputing issuance of cheque
and his signature on it- Plea that it was
issued long back as security and that loan
24
Crl. Appeal No.322/2022
amount was repaid- Not supported by any
evidence- Fact that date was printed, would
not lend any evidence to case of accused –
Acquittal not proper.”
To fortify this opinion, I would like to rely on the
decision reported in, 2006 Cri.L.J.3760, Umaswamy Vs.
K.N.Ramanath, the Hon’ble Court pleased to observe
that;
“Negotiable Instrument Act (26 of
1881). S.138- Dishonour of cheque –
cheque even if issued as a security for
payment, it is negotiable instrument
and encashable security at the hands
of payee -Merely because it is issued
as security is no ground to exonerate
the penal liability u/s.138.”
In another decision reported in, IV (2013) BC 284
(P & H), Shalini Enterprises & Anr Vs. Indiabulls
Financial Service Ltd., wherein their lordships pleased to
observe that,
25
Crl. Appeal No.322/2022
“(iii) Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881–
Section 138- Dishonour of cheque-
security cheque-Is integral part of
commercial process entered into
between petitioner and respondent
/complainant -Security cheque can
fasten liability on drawer under N.I.
Act.- Argument that security cheque is
not handed over or issued in
pursuance of any un-discharged
liability -To hold so would defeat
whole purpose of security cheque-
Security cheque is an
acknowledgment of liability on part of
drawer that cheque holder may use
security cheque as an alternate mode
of discharging his/its liability.”
The latest decision on this aspect is found in the case
of T.P.Murugan (Dead) through Lrs Vs Bojan, reported in
(2018) 8 SCC 469 wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has
reiterated the aspect of security and held that evidence is
required to rebut the presumption. Said observation is
reasserted the case of Shree Daneshwari Traders Vs
Sanjay Jain, reported in (2019) 16 SCC 83.
26
Crl. Appeal No.322/2022
25. Similar to the cited decision, in the present
case also it is the only defence of the accused that, the
cheque in dispute alleged to has been issued towards
security to the complainant and he has filed this false
complaint by misusing the said cheque. However, the
accused has admitted the issuance of cheque and his
signature on the said cheque and also taken defence
that, the cheque was issued towards security but no
documents or proof given by the accused to prove his
defence. In such circumstances by applying the
principles of law laid down in the above decisions, this
defence of the accused does not holds any water.
26. Section 138 of N.I.Act is a special statute,
which provides for rising of statutory presumptions in
favour of the complainant. It is for the accused to rebut
the said presumptions through cogent and convincing
evidence. In case the accused successfully rebut the
27
Crl. Appeal No.322/2022
presumptions, then only the reverse onus shifts on the
complainant to prove the transaction in question in
detail. As discussed supra, accused neither taken
probable defence, nor established the non-existence of
legally recoverable debt. This aspect has reiterated by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
P.Rasiya V/s. Abdul Nazer and another in
Crl.A.Nos.1233-1235 of 2022 dated 12.08.2022, the
Hon’ble Court pleased to observe that;
” Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with
the judgment and orders passed by the
Appellate Court affirming the conviction of
the accused U/s.138 of N.I.Act, the
accused preferred three different
Revision Applications before the High
Court. By the impugned common
judgment and order, the High Court has
reversed the concurrent findings
recorded by both the courts below and
has acquitted the accused on the ground
that, in the complaint, the complainant
has not specifically stated the nature of
transactions and the source of fund.
However, the High Court has failed to
28
Crl. Appeal No.322/2022note the presumption under Section 139
of the N.I.Act. As per Section 139 of
N.I.Act, it shall be presumed, unless the
contrary is proved, that the holder of a
cheque received the cheque of the nature
referred to in Section 138 for discharge,
in whole or in part, of any debt or other
liability. Therefore, once the initial burden
is discharged by the complainant that the
cheque was issued by the accused and
the signature and the issuance of the
cheque is not disputed by the accused, in
that case, the onus will shift upon the
accused to prove the contrary that the
cheque was not for any debt or other
liability. The presumptions under section
139 of the N.I.Act is a statutory
presumptions and thereafter, once it is
presumed that the cheque is issued in
whole or in part of any debt or other
liability which is in favour of the
complainant/ holder of the cheque, in that
case, it is for the accused to prove the
contrary. The aforesaid has not been
dealt with and considered by the High
Court. “
The principles laid down in the decision is applicable
to the case on hand.
29
Crl. Appeal No.322/2022
27. In the celebrated decision of 3 Judges Bench of
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Rangappa‘s case and in
the latest decision of 3 Judges Bench of Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India reported in (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases
742 in a case of Triyambak S. Hegde V/s. Sripad, it is
clearly observed that, when drawer of the cheque admits
the signature present on the disputed cheque, complainant
is entitled to rely on the statutory presumptions, which
includes the existence of legally enforceable debt.
28. From the discussions made supra, it is crystal
clear that, complainant has placed convincing,
corroborative oral and documentary evidence to prove the
loan transaction of ₹.1,50,000/- and issuance of a cheque
for discharge of the said loan amount within a period of six
months. Apart from that, complainant has also proved that,
on presentation, said cheque was dishonoured for want of
sufficient funds in the bank account maintained by the
30
Crl. Appeal No.322/2022
accused. The service of legal notice is also proved. The
accused has not repaid the amount covered under the
cheque till this day. He has not placed probable defence to
dislodge the statutory presumptions raised in favour of the
complainant. Therefore, this court opined that, the
complainant has successfully established the guilt of the
accused punishable U/s.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
The learned trial Judge has considered all these aspects
in proper perspective and rightly held that, accused has
committed the offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I.Act.
Accordingly, Points No.1 and 2 under consideration are
answered in the Affirmative.
29. POINT No.3:- The complainant has placed
cogent material to show compliance of all the ingredients of
Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, which envisages
raising of statutory presumptions in favour of the
complainant. The accused is not successful in placing
31
Crl. Appeal No.322/2022
acceptable contentions to rebut the presumptions. Thus,
the complainant has proved the guilt of the accused
punishable U/s.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
30. The trial court has assigned proper reasons in
the impugned judgment of conviction as against the
allegations made in the memorandum of appeal and
proceeded to pass conviction and imposed sentence of
fine amount. No grounds are made out in the
memorandum of appeal to interfere with the Impugned
judgment of conviction.
31. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned,
trial court has imposed sentence of fine directing the
accused to pay fine of ₹.1,55,000/-(One Lakh fifty five
thousand ) to the complainant for dishonour of a
cheque. Out of fine amount of ₹.1,50,000/- (One lakh fifty
thousand) shall be paid to the complainant by way of
compensation and ₹.5,000/-(Five thousand) shall be paid
32
Crl. Appeal No.322/2022
to State exchequer. In default of payment of fine amount,
accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period
of six months. Fine amount imposed is within the purview
of Section 138 of N.I.Act. Accused failed to establish the
fact that, sentence imposed is exorbitant and excessive.
There is no merit in the appeal. Order under appeal is
sustainable in law. Hence, interference of this court is not
necessary. Accordingly, point No.3 under consideration
is answered in the Negative.
32. POINT No.4:- In view of findings on the above
points No.1 to 3, this criminal appeal is devoid of merits
and the same is liable to be dismissed by confirming
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
Hence, this court proceed to pass the following:
33
Crl. Appeal No.322/2022
ORDER
This Criminal Appeal U/s.374(3) of
Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the
appellant is dismissed.
Consequently, the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated
18/12/2021 passed in C.C.No. 361/2020 on
the file of 4th Addl. Judge, Court of Small
Causes, Bengaluru (SCCH-6), is confirmed.
Appellant is directed to appear before
the Trial Court to deposit the fine amount or
to serve the default sentence.
Office is directed to transmit T.C.R.
along with copy of this Judgment to the trial
court, forthwith, for information.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by her, corrected by me and
pronounced in open court on this 12th day of August, 2025)(MALA N.D.)
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65),
BENGALURU CITY.
34 Crl. Appeal No.322/2022 Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate judgment ORDER This Criminal Appeal U/s.374(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the appellant is dismissed. Consequently, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18/12/2021 passed in C.C.No. 361/2020 on the file of 4th Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (SCCH-6), is confirmed. 35 Crl. Appeal No.322/2022 Appellant is directed to appear before the Trial Court to deposit the fine amount or to serve the default sentence. Office is directed to transmit T.C.R. along with copy of this Judgment to the trial court, forthwith, for information. (MALA N.D) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.