Bangalore District Court
M/S Muthoot Pappachan Chits (I) Pvt Ltd vs Pramila Gopal on 27 January, 2025
1 C.C.No.8008/2023
KABC030134232023
Presented on : 30-03-2023
Registered on : 30-03-2023
Decided on : 27-01-2025
Duration : 2 years, 7 months, 27 days
IN THE COURT OF XXXVI ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Dated this 27th day of January 2025
Present: SRI. NITIN YESHWANTH RAO
B.Com. L.L.B(Spl.),
XXXVI Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bengaluru.
C.C.No.8008/2023
Complainant : M/s. Muthoot Pappachan Chits
(I) Pvt. Ltd.,
Reg.Branch office at Door No.2732,
1st Floor,
2 C.C.No.8008/2023
Darpana Square, 14th Main Road,
E Block, Sahakara Nagar,
Opp: to Attide Biz,
Bengaluru-560092
Rep. by its Authorised
Manager/Foreman:
Sri.Ramesh.G.
(By Sri.PPJ Adv.,)
V/S
Accused : : Kum. Pramila Gopal
D/o Gopal.M,
No.54, 3rd Cross,
Near Anjenaya Temple,
Hanuma Nagar, New Thippasandra,
Bengaluru-560075.
(By BCS Associates Adv.,)
Date of Institution of case 2023
Nature of case Private complaint
Date of recording of evidence 28/3/2023
3 C.C.No.8008/2023
Date of Judgment 27/01/2025
Offences complained of U/Sec.138 of Negotiable
Instrument Act.
JUDGMENT
This is a case arising out of the private complaint filed
by the Complainant Chit Company represented by its
Authorised Manager/Foreman U/Sec.200 Cr.P.C. against
the accused alleging the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. It is the case of the Complainant that the
Complainant Company is a reputed Chit Company registered
under the Company’s Act 1956, having registered office at
Jayanagar IV Block, Bengaluru and branch office at: Tilak
Nagar, Bengaluru. The Complainant Company is in the
business of promoting and conducting Chits as per the
provisions of Chit Funds Act 1982.
One Smt.Chellamma had subscribed for a chit bearing
No.A6/4/2021/28, for chit value of Rs.3,00,000/- payable at
4 C.C.No.8008/2023
the rate of Rs.10,000/- pm. for a total period of 30 months
and another chit bearing No.A6/4/2021/27, for chit valur of
Rs.3,00,000/- payable at the rate of Rs.10,000/- pm for a
total period of 30 months. Smt.Chellamma participated in
the Chit Auction and was declared prize bidder and she also
received prize money of Rs.2,10,000/-. The said
Smt.Chellamma and accused along with other guarantors
executed and On Demand Promissory Note, Surety Form,
Guarantee Bond and other relevant documents in favour of
the Complainant Company for the amount received by
Smt.Chellamma.
Smt.Chellamma was not regular in payment of the chit
installments. She paid 9 and 10 installments and thereafter
she became a defaulter. Therefore, Complainant Company
was forced to issue letters/legal notice to Smt.Chellamma,
accused and the other guarantors. At that point of time, the
accused came forward and issued a cheque bearing
No.425584 dated: 06/01/2023 for a sum of Rs.2,08,700/-
drawn on Indian Bank, New Thippasandra branch,
5 C.C.No.8008/2023
Bengaluru with respect to payment of installments No.10 to
19 and 11 to 20 respectively in both chits and requested
the complainant not to proceed with the legal notice.
The Complainant Company presented the cheque for
collection through its banker, i.e. AXIS Bank, Jayanagar
Branch, Bengaluru on 07/01/2023. However, the said
cheque was dishonoured and returned with an endorsement
‘funds insufficient’ in the bank account of the accused.
Therefore, the complainant issued Legal Notice to the
accused on 21/01/2023 and called upon the accused to pay
the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of the
receipt of the notice. The legal notice sent through RPAD was
duly served on the accused on 24/01/2023. The accused
however, neither came forward to pay the cheque amount
nor did he issue any reply. Constrained by the same.
Complainant came up with this private complaint against
the accused.
6 C.C.No.8008/2023
3. After recording the sworn statement of the
Complainant Company’s Authorised Manager and on
perusal of the documents produced by him, the presence of
the accused was secured. Plea was recorded. As the accused
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the case was
posted for cross examination of PW1.
4. Sworn statement of the Complainant Company’s
Authorised Manager/Foreman is treated as his examination
in chief. In order to prove its case, complainant company
examined it’s Authorised Manager/Foreman as PW1 and got
marked 20 documents as Ex.P1 to 20. The accused on the
other hand neither cross examined PW1 nor did she adduce
any evidence on her behalf.
5. On completion of complainant evidence, the 313
statement of the accused was recorded wherein the accused
was given an opportunity to explain the incriminating
circumstances appearing against her in the complainant
evidence. The accused denied all allegations levelled against
7 C.C.No.8008/2023
her but did not adduce defence evidence despite being given
sufficient opportunity. Hence, the case was posted for
arguments.
6. Heard the arguments of learned Counsel for the
complainant. As the accused and her counsel did not appear
to submit their arguments, defence argument was taken as
heard. Meticulously perused the materials available on
record.
7. The following points arise for my consideration:
POINTS
1) Whether the complainant proves that
the accused committed an offence
punishable U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act?
2) What order ?
8. My findings on the above points are as following:
Point No.1:- In the Affirmative.
Point No.2:- As per final order for the
following:
8 C.C.No.8008/2023
REASONS
9. Point No.1:- In support of it's case, the
Complainant Company got it's A uthorised
Manager/Foreman examined as PW1 and got marked
20 documents as Ex.P1 to P20. Sri.Ramesh.G, who is
examined as PW1 reiterated the complaint averments
in his affidavit filed in lieu of chief-examination. The
Authorisation letter is marked as Ex.P1. The Indian
Bank cheque bearing No.425584 dated 06.01.2023
for Rs.2,08,700/- is marked as Ex.P.2. Bank Memo is
marked as Ex.P.3. The office copy of the legal notice
dated 21/01/2023, postal receipt and track
consignment are marked as Ex.P.4 to 6 respectively.
The receipts dated 15.12.2021 and 22.03.2022 are
marked as Ex.P.7 and 8 respectively. The on demand
promissory notes dated 15/12/2021 and 22/03/2022
are marked as Ex.P.9 and 10 respectively. The 2
gaurantee bonds are are marked Ex.P.11 and 12
9 C.C.No.8008/2023
respectively. Surety forms are marked as Ex.P.13 to
16. 2 ledger extracts and 2 chit agreements are
marked as Ex.P.17 to 20 respectively.
10. Despite sufficient opportunities, the accused did
not come forward to cross examine PW1. Hence, cross of
PW1 was taken as nil. Then, the case was posted for
recording the statement of accused under Sec.313 Cr.P.C.
After recording 313 statement, the accused did not come
forward to adduce defence evidence and therefore, the case
was then posted for arguments.
11. On careful perusal of the aforementioned
Ex.P1 to 20 documents, it is revealed that the
complainant company has complied with all the
essentials enshrined in Sec.138 of NI Act. It
presented the cheque within time for collection and
after it’s dishonor, it issued legal notice to the
accused, which was duly served on her. Despite the
same, when the accused failed to repay the amount,
10 C.C.No.8008/2023
it filed this complaint. As the records reveal,
complainant is entitled to the presumption available
under sec.118(a) and 139 of the NI Act.
12. In Rangappa Vs. Mohan reported in 2010 (1) DCR
706 the Hon’ble Apex court has that ;
“The Statutory presumption mandated by
sec.139 of the Act, does indeed include the
existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability.
However, the presumption U/S 139 of the Act is in
the nature of a rebuttable presumption and it is
open for the accused to raise a defence wherein
the existence of a legally enforceable debt or
liability can be contested”.
13. Therefore, in view of the above decision, once the
cheque is admitted, the statutory presumption would
automatically fall in favour of the complainant that, the
alleged cheque was issued for discharge of an existing legally
enforceable debt or liability against the accused and the
burden will shift on to the accused to rebut the same.
11 C.C.No.8008/2023
14.The learned counsel for the Complainant submitted
that as the accused admitted the cheque and her signature
thereon and as she neither replied to the notice nor adduced
any probable defense evidence, so as to rebut the
presumption, she is to be convicted.
15. Let me now consider whether accused has rebutted
the presumption available in favour of the complainant with
probable and convincing evidence. It is well settled principle
of law that, once the cheque is admitted there will be a
statutory presumption in favour of the holder or holder in
due course U/Ss 118 and 139 of the Act as observed supra.
However, as held by our Hon’ble Apex Court and the High
Court in a catena of decisions, the presumptions under the
said sections are in the nature of rebuttable presumptions
and hence, the accused can very well rebut the said
presumptions by leading reasonable and probable defense.
16. Let us examine the same on the basis of the
materials available on record. The accused has not disputed
12 C.C.No.8008/2023
the issuance of the cheque in question and her signature on
the same. Further Ex.P3 is the Bank memo. Sec.146 of the
NI Act provides that bank documents are prima facie
evidence in respect of the transaction. The complainant has
issued legal notice to the accused as per Ex.P4, which was
duly served on her. Despite the same, she kept mum and did
not issue any reply to the legal notice. The order sheet
reveals that the accused though appeared before the Court,
she could not rebut the presumption available in favor of the
complainant. She has not disputed the alleged transaction.
Also, nothing contrary was elicited from the complainant.
17. Towards rebuttal of the presumption available to
the complainant U/Sec.139 of the Act, the accused neither
came forward to cross examine PW1 nor did she adduce any
defence evidence despite sufficient opportunities.
18. On meticulous perusal of the oral and documentary
evidence placed on record, it is noticed that the accused
13 C.C.No.8008/2023
utterly failed to rebut the presumption available in favor of
the complainant.
19. Thus by looking into the totality of the evidence
and the materials available on record, it is clearly revealed
that the accused issued the cheque in question towards
payment of installment No.10 to 19 and 11 to 20 of the 2
chit she had subscribed. However, the said cheque came
to be dishonoured. Therefore, complainant has specifically
and categorically proved its case regarding the existence of
the debt and issuance of the cheque for the discharge of the
said debt by the accused. Therefore, this Court has come to
the conclusion that the accused committed the offence
punishable U/s.138 of NI Act. Accordingly Point No.1 is
answered in the AFFIRMATIVE.
20. Point No.2:- In view of my answer to Point No.1, I
proceed to pass the following:-
14 C.C.No.8008/2023
ORDER
Accused is found guilty of the
offence punishable U/Sec.138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881.
Acting U/sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C accused
is hereby convicted for the offence
punishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act 1881 and she is
sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,50,000/-.
In default, accused shall undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of six
months.
Out of the total fine amount, a sum
of Rs.2,40,000/- shall be paid to the
complainant as compensation under
section 357 of Cr.P.C. and Rs.10,000/-
shall be remitted to the State exchequer.
Further, it is also made clear that
in view of proviso to Sec.421(1), the
accused shall not be absolved of her
liability to pay compensation amount of
Rs.2,40,000/- awarded U/Sec.357 of
15 C.C.No.8008/2023Cr.P.C., even if she undergoes the
default sentence.
The bail bond of the accused stands
cancelled.
Office is directed to supply free
copy of this judgment to the
accused forthwith.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, transcribed
and typed by her, then corrected and pronounced by me in the open
Court on this the 27th day of January 2025).
(Nitin Yeshwanth Rao),
XXXVI ACJM.,
Bengaluru.
:: ANNEXURE ::
1. List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution :
PW1 Sri.Ramesh.G
2. List of exhibited documents for complainant :
Ex.P1 The Authorisation letter
Ex.P2 The Indian Bank cheque bearing
No.425584 For Rs.2,08,700/-
16 C.C.No.8008/2023
Ex.P3 The Bank Memo
Ex.P4 to 6 Postal receipt and track consignment
Ex.P7 and The receipts dated 15.12.2021 and
8
22.03.2022
Ex.P9 and The on demand promissory notes dated
15/12/2021 and 22/03/2022
10
Ex.P11 The 2 gaurantee bonds
and 12
Ex.P13 to Surety forms
16
Ex.P17 to 2 ledger extracts and 2 chit agreements
20
3. List of defence Witnesses :
-NIL-
4. List of documents exhibited for defence :
-NIL-
(Nitin Yeshwanth Rao),
XXXVI ACJM.,
Bengaluru.