Bangalore District Court
Cholamandalam Investment And Finance … vs Eshwaraiah C on 5 August, 2025
KABC020336762021 Digitally signed
by
RAGHAVENDRA
RAGHAVENDRA SHETTIGAR
SHETTIGAR
Date:
2025.08.06
11:19:37 +0530
IN THE COURT OF XIV ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE &
ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
AT BENGALURU (SCCH-10)
Dated This The 5th day of August 2025
:PRESENT:
SRI. RAGHAVENDRA SHETTIGAR,
B.A., LL.B.,
XIV ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE &
ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
BENGALURU.
C.C No.11782/2021
COMPLAINANT : M/s. Cholamandalam Investment &
Finance Company Ltd.,
(formerly known as M/s. Cholamandalam
DBS Finance Ltd.),
No.45, 2nd Floor, Prestige Libra,
Above Passport Office,
Lalbagh Road,
Bengaluru-560 027.,
Represented by its
Legal Executive & Power of Attorney
Holder, Mr. Raghavendra. J.
2 C.C.No.11782/2021
SCCH-10
S/o. Javaregowda,
Aged about 38 years.
(By Sri. M.S.M., Advocate)
// Versus //
ACCUSED : Sri. Eshwaraiah. C,
S/o. Chikanna,
Aged about 47 years,
R/at Gowdanakatte,
Near School,
Tiptur - 572 201.
(By Sri. M.C.M., Advocate)
:: J U D G M E N T :
:
This is the complaint instituted by the complainant
against the accused under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act-
1881.
2. The Case of the complainant as per complaint
averments is as follows:
The complainant is a company registered under the
companies Act, 1956 and in the course of their financial
3 C.C.No.11782/2021
SCCH-10services they have introduced vehicle loan finance facilities for
the benefit of their customers. The accused approached the
complainant company and availed loan for purchase of ACE
vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-13-C-6673. After utilizing the loan
amount, towards part payment, the accused has issued a
cheque for a sum of Rs.3,92,392/- and the said cheque when
presented has been returned dishonoured with an endorsement
“Funds insufficient” and despite receipt of demand notice, the
accused has not paid the cheque amount. Thus, the accused
has committed the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act. Hence, this complaint.
3. After filing of the complaint, the cognizance of the offence
was taken and registered criminal case against the accused
and the summons was issued to him. The accused has
appeared before the Court through his counsel and was
enlarged on bail. Subsequently, plea was recorded and the
4 C.C.No.11782/2021
SCCH-10
substance of the accusation was read over and explained to
him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The Power of Attorney holder of the complainant
company was examined as PW-1 and the documents produced
by the complainant were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6.
5. Further, the Statement of the Accused U/Sec.313 of
Cr.P.C was recorded. The accused has denied the incriminating
circumstances appeared against him in the evidence. The
accused has not lead any evidence on his behalf.
6. Heard the arguments. Perused the materials available on
record.
7. Now the points that arise for my determination are as
follows:-
1) Whether the complainant proved that, the
accused, in discharge of his liability had issued
a cheque for a sum of Rs.3,92,392/- towards part
payment and when the said cheque was
5 C.C.No.11782/2021
SCCH-10presented to the Bank for encashment it was
returned unpaid with remarks “Funds
Insufficient” and despite service of demand
notice, he has not paid the amount and there by
committed an offence punishable under Section
138 of Negotiable Instruments Act ?
2) What Order?
8. On the basis of the materials available on record, my
finding to the above points are as follows:
POINT NO.1: In the Affirmative.
POINT NO.2: As per the final order,
for the following:
REASONS
9. POINT No.1:
According to the complainant, the accused approached
the complainant company for financial assistance for purchase
of vehicle and based on the request of the accused, the
complainant company sanctioned the loan for purchase of
vehicle and after utilizing the loan amount, in discharge of his
6 C.C.No.11782/2021
SCCH-10liability, he has issued the cheque for a sum of Rs.3,92,392/-
and when the said cheque was presented, same was
dishonoured and the complainant got issued a legal notice to
the accused calling upon him to pay the cheque amount and
despite service of notice, the accused has not paid the cheque
amount.
10. To substantiate its case, the Power of Attorney holder of
the complainant company was examined as PW-1 and got
marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6. PW-1 has reiterated the contents of
the complaint in his affidavit about lending of loan to the
accused for purchase of vehicle, issuance of cheque by the
accused towards discharge of his liability and its dishonour
and issuance of the legal notice to the accused calling upon him
to pay the amount covered under cheque and his failure to
comply the same.
11. Let me scrutinize the documents relied by the
complainant in order to examine the compliance of statutory
7 C.C.No.11782/2021
SCCH-10
requirements as envisaged under Section 138 of N.I. Act,
Ex.P.1 is the Power of attorney, Ex.P.2 is the Cheque,
Ex.P.2(a) is the Signature of the accused, Ex.P.3 is the Bank
endorsement, Ex.P.4 is the Legal notice, Ex.P.5 is Postal
receipt and Ex.P.6 is the Postal acknowledgment.
12. On careful perusal of the documents relied by the
complainant goes to show that, statutory requirements of
Section 138 of N.I. Act is complied with and this complaint is
filed within time. Further, the complainant has discharged his
initial burden by relying oral and documentary evidence. Thus,
the complainant is entitled to rely on the statutory
presumptions enshrined under Section 118 read with Section
139 of N.I. Act.
13. As far as proof of existence of legally enforceable debt is
concerned, it is profitable to refer the decision of full bench of
the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Rangappa Vs. Mohan
8 C.C.No.11782/2021
SCCH-10
reported in AIR 2010 SC 1898, wherein their lordships
pleased to observe that,
“In the light of these extracts, we are in
agreement with the respondent-claimant that
the presumption mandated by Section 139 of the
Act does indeed include the existence of the
legally enforceable debt or liability”.
In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the
presumption enshrined under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is
extendable to the existence of legally enforceable debt.
14. In another decision reported in, (2015) 8 SCC 378 in the
case of Vasanthakumar Vs. Vijayakumari, it is held that
once the accused has admitted the issuance of Cheque as well
as signature on it, the presumption under Section 139 would be
attracted.
15. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bir Singh Vs Mukesh
Kumar reported in (2019) 4 SCC 197 held that,
“The proposition of law which emerges from
the judgments referred to above is that the
9 C.C.No.11782/2021
SCCH-10
onus to rebut the presumption under Section
139 that the cheque has been issued in
discharge of a debt or liability is on the
accused and the fact that the cheque might be
post dated does not absolve the drawer of a
cheque of the penal consequences of Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
If a signed blank cheque is voluntarily
presented to a payee, towards some payment,
the payee may fill up the amount and other
particulars. This in itself would not invalidate
the cheque. The onus would still be on the
accused to prove that the cheque was not in
discharge of a debt or liability by adducing
evidence.
Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily
signed and handed over by the accused, which
is towards some payment, would attract
presumption under Section 139 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, in the absence of
any cogent evidence to show that the cheque
was not issued in discharge of a debt.”
The Hon’ble Apex Court has clearly laid down the ratio
that, when the ingredients of Section 138 of NI Act are
complied with, presumption shall be drawn in favour of the
10 C.C.No.11782/2021
SCCH-10
complainant. The burden is upon the accused to rebut the
statutory presumptions.
16. From the above proposition of law, it is now trite that,
presumptions available under Section 139 and 118 of NI Act
are rebuttable in nature. The accused can take probable
defence in the scale of preponderance of probability to rebut
the presumption available to the complainant. In the instant
case, the accused has not disputed issuance of cheque and his
signature in the cheque by way of cross-examination or by
leading defence evidence. It goes without saying that, accused
has not disputed the cheque in question and signature found
therein. When the drawer has admitted the issuance of the
cheque as well as the signature present therein, the
presumptions as envisaged under Section 118 read with
Section 139 of NI Act would operate in favour of the
complainant.
11 C.C.No.11782/2021
SCCH-10
17. The evidence placed by the complainant is remained
unchallenged and there is no reason to disbelieve the version of
the complainant. Though the accused has denied the
transaction while recording of his plea, but in support of his
defence he has neither cross-examined PW-1 nor lead any
defence evidence. The accused has completely failed to rebut
the presumption. Hence, the presumption available in favour
of the complainant under Section 139 and 118 of NI Act
remained unrebutted. Accordingly, the complainant has proved
that, for discharge of liability accused has issued Ex.P.2 cheque
and he has intentionally not maintained sufficient amount in
his account to honour the said cheque. Therefore, the accused
is liable to be convicted. Hence, this Point No.1 under
consideration is answered in the Affirmative.
12 C.C.No.11782/2021
SCCH-10
18. POINT No.2:
In view of the reasons stated and discussed above, the
complainant has proved that the accused has committed an
offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
19. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a decision reported in
(2015) 17 SCC 368, in a case of H.Pukhraj Vs.
D.Parasmal, observed that, having regard to the length of
trial and date of issuance of the cheque, it is necessary to
award reasonable interest on the cheque amount along with
cost of litigation. Therefore, keeping in mind the time when the
transaction has taken place and 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 his monitory
loss, by awarding compensation U/Sec.357 of Cr.P.C, would
meet the ends of justice. By keeping in mind Sec.143(1), Sec.80
13 C.C.No.11782/2021
SCCH-10
and 117 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the compensation
has to be awarded.
20. As per the records, the cheque was dated 21.09.2021 and
amount covered under said cheque is Rs.3,92,392/-. It appears
that, the complainant has spent considerable time and money
to prosecute the case. By considering all these aspects, this
Court is of the opinion that, it is just and proper to impose fine
amount of Rs.4,05,000/-, which includes interest and cost of
litigation, out of which compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- has to be
awarded to the complainant U/s 357 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, this
court proceeds to pass the following;
ORDER
Acting under Sec. 255(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is
found guilty and he is convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act and he is sentenced to pay a fine of
Rs.4,05,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh and Five Thousand
only). In default to pay the fine, accused shall undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
14 C.C.No.11782/2021
SCCH-10
Further, acting under Sec.357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., a
sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) on
recovery shall be paid to the complainant as
compensation and Rs.5,000/- shall be remitted to the
state exchequer for the expenses incurred for
prosecution.
Supply free copy of this judgment to the accused
immediately.
The bail bond stands canceled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by her and
corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Court on 5 th day of August
2025).
(RAGHAVENDRA SHETTIGAR)
XIV ADDL.S.C.J., A.C.J.M. &
MEMBER-MACT, BENGALURU.
::A N N E X U R E::
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE
COMPLAINANT:-
P.W.1 : Mr. Raghavendra. J
15 C.C.No.11782/2021
SCCH-10
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE
COMPLAINANT:-
Ex.P.1 : Power of Attorney Ex.P.2 : Cheque
Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of the accused
Ex.P.3 : Bank endorsement
Ex.P.4 : Legal notice
Ex.P.5 : Postal receipt
Ex.P.6 : Postal acknowledgmentLIST OF WITNESSES & DOCUMENTS BEHALF OF THE
ACCUSED:-
-NIL-
(RAGHAVENDRA SHETTIGAR)
XIV ADDL.S.C.J., A.C.J.M. &
MEMER-MACT, BENGALURU.