Bangalore District Court
Aripaka Bhaskara Rao vs Palaparthi Ramana on 14 August, 2025
CC.No.13846/2020
KABC030520542020
Presented on : 23-10-2020
Registered on : 23-10-2020
Decided on : 14-08-2025
Duration : 4 years, 9 months, 22 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Dated: This the 14th day of August 2025
Present: Smt.Tejaswini K.M., B.A.L. LL.M,
XVI Addl.C.J.M., Bengaluru City.
CC. No.13846/2020
Sri.Aripaka Bhaskara Rao
Aged about 44 years
S/o Sri.A.Lakshmana Rao
R/at No.551/A/1, 3rd Cross,
2nd Block, 8th Main, Ashoknagar,
Banashankari 1st Stage,
Bangalore - 560050.
....Complainant
(By Sri A.Shivaram., Advocate)
Versus
2 C.C.13846/2020
Sri.Palaparthi Ramana
Aged about 60 years
S/o Late Palaparthi Subba Rao
Opp. APSP 5th Battalion Quarters,
Krishna Puram,
Bodda Valasa Village,
Denkada mandal,
Vizianagaram Dist. Pin:535005.
.... Accused
(By Sri Ramesh Nanduri., Advocate)
Offence complained : U/Sec.138 of Negotiable
Instrument Act.
Date of commencement
of evidence : 05.08.2019
Date of closing evidence : 15.02.2025
Opinion of the Judge : Accused found guilty
Offence complained : U/Sec.138 of Negotiable
Instrument Act.
Opinion of the Judge : Accused found guilty
3 C.C.13846/2020
JUDGMENT
This case is registered against the accused for the
offence punishable U/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act.
2. Factual matrix of the complainant’s case is as
under:
It is stated that the complainant knows the accused
from several years. The accused approached the
complainant in the month of January 2017 and requested
for hand loan of Rs.3 lakhs for construction of his house.
The complainant has paid Rs.2,50,000/- through Axis Bank
account and Rs.50,000/- by way of cash. The accused has
executed promissory note on 18.01.2017 and agreed to
repay it within 18 months with interest of Rs.1,75/- Paisa
per Rs.100/- per month on the principal amount. The
accused failed to repay the interest as agreed. Hence the
4 C.C.13846/2020complainant has issued notice to the accused on
13.02.2019 seeking for repayment of loan amount with
interest. The accused got issued reply notice on
03.04.2019. Thereafter, the accused admitted the
outstanding due to the complainant and for payment of
the principal amount with interest of Rs.1,41,750/-, issued
postdated cheque bearing No.061340 dated 07.05.2019
for Rs.4,41,750/-, drawn on M/s Axis Bank, Basavanagudi
Branch, Bengaluru. The complainant has presented the
cheque before the bank, but it got dishonoured for the
reason ‘Funds Insufficient’ vide memo dated 09.05.2019.
Thereafter, the complainant got issued a legal notice on
13.05.2019 demanding the accused to make payment of
cheque amount within stipulated period. The notice have
been served upon the accused. However, the accused has
not repaid the amount and not given reply to the demand
5 C.C.13846/2020
notice. Hence the complainant has constrained to file the
present complaint.
3. After receiving the complaint, this court has
meticulously gone through the documents and affidavit
filed along with it and then took cognizance of the offence
punishable U/sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and
ordered for registration of the compliant as P.C.R.
4. Sworn statement of the complainant was
recorded and marked 17 documents as Ex.P-1 to P-17. As
there were sufficient materials to constitute the offence,
this court has proceeded to pass an order for issuing
process against the accused.
5. In pursuance of summons, accused has appeared
through his counsel and applied for bail. He was enlarged
on bail. Then the substance of accusation was read over
6 C.C.13846/2020
to the accused in the language known to him, for which
he pleaded not guilty.
6. As per the direction of Hon’ble supreme court in
“Indian Bank Association V/s Union of India and others
reported in (2014)(5) SCC 590, this court treated the
sworn statement of the complainant as complainant
evidence and posted matter for cross-examination of
PW.1. The counsel for the accused has cross-examined
PW.1.
7. The statement of accused as contemplated under
the provisions of Section 313 of Cr.P.C has been recorded
vide dated 25.10.2024 and the incriminating evidence as
such forthcoming against the accused in the evidence of
PW.1 and the documents has been read over and
explained to the accused in the language known to him.
He denied all incriminating evidence. The accused has
not led any evidence.
7 C.C.13846/2020
8. I have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel for complainant. The counsel for the accused has
not addressed the arguments on merits. I have perused
the oral and the documentary evidence placed on record.
9. Points that arise for my consideration are as
under:
1. Whether the complainant proves that the
accused towards discharge of his liabilityissued a cheque bearing No.061340 dated
07.05.2019 for Rs.4,41,750/-, drawn on Axis
Bank, Visakhapatnam in favour of
complainant, on presentation of the same
for encashment, it was dishonored for
“Funds Insufficient” in the account
maintained by the accused, then in-spite of
issuing demand notice to the Accused and
in complying with statutory requirement
under Negotiable Instrument Act, Accused
did not repay the cheque amount, thereby
he has committed an offence punishable
U/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act?
8 C.C.13846/2020
2. What Order?
10. My Answer to above points are as under:-
Point No.I :- In the Affirmative,
Point No.II :- As per the final order for
the following....
REASONS
11. POINT NO.I:- In nutshell, case of the
complainant is that he has lent loan of Rs.3 lakhs to the
accused in the month of January 2017 and in discharge of
the said loan, the accused has issued cheque in question.
But, same got dishonoured for the reason ‘Funds
Insufficient’. Despite of giving notice, the accused has not
repaid the amount. Hence the present complaint.
12. To substantiate his case the complainant
stepped into witness box and got examined as PW.1. He
has got marked Ex.P1 to P17. He has produced the
cheque issued by accused and the same is marked as
9 C.C.13846/2020
Ex.P-1, the signature of the accused is marked as Ex.P-
1(a), copy of bank memo is marked as Ex.P-2, copy of
demand notice dated:13.05.2019 is marked as Ex.P-3,
copy of postal receipt is marked as Ex.P-4, copy of track
consignment is marked as Ex.P5, copy of letter issued by
Axis Bank is marked as Ex.P-6, copy of notice dated
13.02.2019 is marked as Ex.P-7, copy of reply notice dated
20.03.2019 is marked as Ex.P-8, complaint is marked as
Ex.P-9, bank statement is marked as Ex.P-10, Copy of
promissory note is marked as Ex.P-11, copy of what’s app
messages is marked as Ex.P-12, Certificate U/Sec.65 (b)(4)
of Indian Evidence Act is marked as Ex.P13, translated
copy of D.P.Note is marked as Ex.P-14, copy of what’s app
chat is marked as Ex.P-15, Certificate U/Sec.65 -B of Indian
Evidence Act is marked as Ex.P16 and account statement
of complainant is marked as Ex.P.17.
10 C.C.13846/2020
13. Negotiable Instruments Act provides for some
presumption in favour of the complainant i.e., Section 118
reads as here: – “That every negotiable instrument was
made or drawn for consideration and that every such
instrument when it has been accepted, endorsed,
negotiated or transferred was accepted, endorsed,
negotiated or transferred for consideration”.
14. Further Sec 139 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act provides for presumption in favour of a holder. It
reads as here: – “It shall be presumed, unless the contrary
is proved, that the holder of a 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.”
15. Combined reading of above said sections raises
a presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque that
he has received the same for discharge in whole or in part
11 C.C.13846/2020
of any debt or other liability. However, it is settled
principle of law that the presumption available u/s 139 NI
Act can be rebutted by the accused by raising a probable
defense.
16. The complainant has reiterated the contents of
the complaint in his chief examination. During cross-
examination of PW.1 by the counsel for the accused, PW.1
has deposed that he is a Software Architect and has
annual salary of Rs.40,00,000/-. He knows the accused
through wife of the accused. He has seen the property of
the accused which is situated in Ramapuram, Voddavalasa
Village, Chintala Valasa Post, Vijayanagar District, Andhra
Pradesh. He deposed that he has not shown the amount
given to the accused in his tax returns as he has given the
money which is already taxed money. He deposed that
accused has issued cheque in April 2019 in presence of
himself and one person by name Dinakar. He deposed
12 C.C.13846/2020
that principal amount is Rs.3 lakhs, but the cheque is
presented for Rs.4,41,750/- which includes the interest till
April 2019. He further deposed that Ex.P15 is a message
sent by the advocate for accused to him wherein accused
admitted to give principal amount of Rs.3 lakhs. He
deposed that he has not a money lender, but the accused
agreed to give interest to him.
17. The advocate for accused sought time to further
cross examination and time was granted, but the accused
has not completed further cross-examination of PW.1 and
also not lead defense evidence and not addressed the
arguments on merits.
18. I have meticulously gone through the pleading
and evidence placed on record. In the part of the cross-
examination of PW.1 the accused has not disputed his
signature at Ex.P1 cheque. It appears that the cheque in
question is joint account cheque belonging to Palaparthi
13 C.C.13846/2020
Ramana i.e. accused and Palaparthi Kantham. This case is
filed against Palaparthi Ramana only. The accused has
neither disputed the issuance of cheque nor his signature
at Ex.P1(a).
19. The Honorable Supreme Court of India in
“Triyambak S Hegde v Sripad” (2022) 1 SCC 742 while
relying upon the the constitution bench judgment of
Basalingappa v Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418, under
para 14 of its judgment reiterated that
“once the cheque was issued and that the
signatures are upon the cheque are accepted by
the accused, the presumptions undee Sec 118
and 139 of the NI Act arise against the accused.
That is, unless the contrary is proved, it shall be
presumed that the cheques in question were
drawn by the accused for a consideration and
that the complainant had received the cheque in
question in discharge of debt/liability from the
accused.”
14 C.C.13846/2020
20. Therefore, as per Sec.118 and 139 of NI Act initial
presumption has to drawn infavour of the complainant
that cheque was issued in discharge of legally enforceable
debt. The burden lies on the accused to rebut the said
initial presumption on the scale of preponderance of
probabilities.
21. PW.1 has deposed that he has given Rs.3 lakhs
to the accused. To substantiate the same the complainant
has produced his account statement at Ex.P17 which
shows that he has sent Rs.50,000/- on 18.01.2017 and
Rs.2,00,000/- on 30.01.2017 to the account of the accused
which is in consonance with the pleadings. The accused
has not disputed it. Further it is pleaded in the complaint
that apart from Rs.2,50,000/- sent through account,
remaining Rs.50,000/- paid by way of cash to the accused,
even the accused has not disputed it. Ex.P11 is the
promissory note and Ex.P14 is it’s translated copy. On
15 C.C.13846/2020
perusal of the same it is evident that the accused has
agreed that he has received Rs.3 lakhs from the
complainant and agreed to repay it with interest as stated
in the complaint. In the part of the cross-examination the
accused has not disputed the execution of promissory
note in favour of the complainant. Therefore, the
complainant has proved that he has given Rs.3 lakhs to
the accused in January 2017.
22. The complainant has specifically deposed that
the accused has agreed to repay the principal amount of
Rs.3 lakhs with interest and issued cheque in question for
Rs.4,41,750/-. Nothing worth is elicited from the mouth of
PW.1 to destroy his case. Indeed the accused has not at all
completed the cross-examination of PW.1 to rebut the
evidence of the complainant and also not stepped into
witness box to give evidence.
16 C.C.13846/2020
23. The complainant has given the demand notice
through RPAD to the accused as per Ex.P3 & P4 and it has
been served on the accused as per Ex.P5. However, the
accused has not given reply to the said notice. As per the
pleadings before receiving the cheque from the accused,
the complainant had given loan recovery notice to the
accused on 13.02.2019 as per Ex.P7 and to the said notice
accused has given reply as per Ex.P8 on 03.04.2019.
However, after cheque got dishonoured the complainant
has issued the demand notice as stipulated U/Sec.138 of
NI Act and same is served to the accused, but the accused
has not given reply to the said notice and same is fatal to
the defense of the accused.
24. Indeed it is not at all forthcoming what is the
defense of the accused as he has not taken any specific
contention regarding the issuance of cheque or the loan
transaction. Ex.P12 is the what’s app conversation
17 C.C.13846/2020
between the complainant and advocate for accused
wherein the advocate stated that the accused has agreed
to repay the principal with interest as mentioned in the
cheque. None of the documents of the complainant are
denied or disputed by the accused. Nothing worth is
elicited from the mouth of PW.1 in the part of the cross-
examination to disregard his evidence.
25. Therefore, having regard to the entire evidence
placed on record this Court is the clear view that the
complainant has proved the case beyond reasonable
doubt. The loan amount has been received in the year
2017 and the cheque has been issued in the year 2020.
Therefore, having regard to the time taken by the accused
to repay the amount and the time of litigation and its
expenses, Court is of the view that accused is liable to pay
the fine imposed by this Court. Thus, this Court holds that
complainant has proved the case beyond reasonable
18 C.C.13846/2020
doubts. Accordingly court proceed to answer POINT NO.I
IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
26. POINT NO.II:- In view of the reasons assigned in
above point, it is ample clear that accused has committed
the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Act. A bare reading
of sec.138 of the NI Act indicates that the purport of
sec.138 is to prevent and punish the dishonest drawers of
cheques who evade their liability. The Hon’ble Apex Court
in its recent decision in M/s. Meters & instrument Pvt
Ltd. Vs. Kanchana Mehta reported in (2018)1 SCC-560
held at para 18(ii)
that”(ii) The object of the provision being primarily
compensatory, punitive element being mainly with the
object of enforcing the compensatory element,
compounding at the initial stage has to be encouraged
but is not debarred at later stage subject to appropriate
compensation as may be found.” In view of the reasons
19 C.C.13846/2020
assigned in above point, it is ample clear that accused has
committed the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Act.
27. Therefore, having regard to the amount
advanced, time from which it is lying with the accused,
and keeping in mind the primary object of the provision,
this court is of the opinion that, rather than imposing
punitive sentence, if sentence of fine is imposed with a
direction to compensate the complainant for its monitory
loss, by awarding compensation U/Sec.357 of Cr.P.C,
would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, this court
proceeds to pass following …..
ORDER
The accused is found guilty for the offence
punishable U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act.
20 C.C.13846/2020
Hence, acting U/sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C, the
accused is convicted and sentenced to pay a fine
of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Only), in
default of fine amount, he shall undergo simple
imprisonment for Six Months for the offence
punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act.
Out of the fine amount collected from the
accused, an amount of Rs.5,95,000/- (Rupees
Five Lakhs Ninety Five Thousand only) shall be
paid to the complainant as compensation
U/s.357 of Cr.P.C. and the remaining fine of
Rs.5,000/- shall be adjusted towards the cost of
state expenses.
The bail bonds of the accused shall be in
force till the appeal period is over as
contemplated under the provisions of
Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C.
21 C.C.13846/2020
Office to supply the copy of the
Judgment to the accused forthwith at free of
cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, corrected by me and
then judgment pronounced in the open court on this the 14 th day of
August 2025).
Digitally signed
by Tejaswini K
Tejaswini M
KM Date:
2025.08.16
10:21:27 +0530
(Smt.Tejaswini K.M),
XVI ACJM, Bengaluru
ANNEXURE
I. List of witnesses on behalf of complainant:
P.W.1: Sri. Aripaka Bhaskara Rao
II. List of documents on behalf of complainant:
Ex.P-1 : Original Cheque.
Ex.P-1(a) : Signature of the accused.
Ex.P-2 : Bank memo.
Ex.P-3 : Copy of Legal notice.
Ex.P-4 : Postal receipt.
Ex.P-5: Track Consignment
Ex.P-6 : Copy of letter dated 25.06.2019
Ex.P-7 : Copy of notice dated 13.02.2019.
22 C.C.13846/2020Ex.P-8 : copy of reply notice dated 03.04.2019..
Ex.P-9 : Complaint.
Ex.P-10 : Bank Statement.
Ex.P-11 : Copy of promissory note.
Ex.P-12 : Copy of what’s app messages.
Ex.P-13: Certificate U/Sec.65B (4) of Indian
Evidence Act.
Ex.P-14 : Translated copy of promissory note.
Ex.P-15 : Copy of what’s app conversation.
Ex.P-16 : Certificate U/Sec.65B of Indian
Evidence Act.
Ex.P-17 : Account Statement.
III. List of witnesses for the accused:
Nil
IV. List of documents for accused:
Nil
Digitally
signed by
Tejaswini K M
Tejaswini Date:
KM 2025.08.16
10:21:38
+0530
(Smt.Tejaswini K.M ),
XVI ACJM, Bengaluru
23 C.C.13846/2020