Bangalore District Court
Kumara vs Manjunath on 12 May, 2025
1
C.C.No. 16858/2021
KABC030490382021
Presented on : 29-07-2021
Registered on : 29-07-2021
Decided on : 12-05-2025
Duration : 3 years, 9 months, 14 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XXII ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
PRESENT: SRI.JAI SHANKAR.J,
B.A.L., LL.B
XXII ADDL.C.J.M., BENGALURU.
DATED: THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MAY 2025
JUDGMENT U/s.278(2) of BNSS -2023
(OLD CORRESPONDENCE NO. 255(2) OF CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
C.C.NO. : 16858/2021
COMPLAINANT : Sri. Kumara. D.N,
S/o. Sri. Nagaraju. B,
Aged about 32 years,
Residing at Doddabala,
Bindhiganavil Hobli,
2
C.C.No. 16858/2021
Nagamangala Taluk,
Mandya - 571802.
(By Smt. Kokila.G , Adv.)
V/s.
ACCUSED : Sri. Manjunath. D.G,
S/o Sri. Govinda,
Major in age,
Doddabala, Bindhiganavil Hobli,
Nagamangala Taluk,
Mandya - 571802.
(By Sri. Prabhu & Srinivas., Adv., )
Offence complained : U/s.138 of N.I.Act
of
Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Accused is convicted
Date of order : 12.05.2025
JUDGMENT
This is a private complaint filed by the complainant
against the accused for the offence punishable under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
3
C.C.No. 16858/2021
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is as
under:
It is contended that, the complainant and the accused
are relatives and known since childhood. Under such
acquittance, during the month of June 2019, the accused
approached the complainant for hand loan of Rs.3 lakhs to
overcome his financial crisis. Considering the request of the
accused, the complainant advanced Rs.3 lakhs to the
accused and the accused promised to repay the loan amount
within 12 months and issued cheque bearing No.000821,
dt:26.02.2021 for Rs.3,00,000/-, drawn on ICICI Bank,
Vijayanagar Branch, Bengaluru, assuring that, on its
presentation it would be honored. On the assurance given by
the accused, when the complainant presented the cheque
through his banker, it dishonored with shara as “Drawer
signature Differs” dt:05.03.2021. Thereby, the complainant
4C.C.No. 16858/2021
got issued the demand notice dt:22.03.2021 through RPAD
to the native address of the accused, which returned
unserved. Thereby, after ascertaining the temporary address
of the accused of Bengaluru, the complainant again got
issued the demand notice on 17.04.2021 to the said address
and it got served on the accused. Rather, complying the
demand of the demand notice, the accused has got issued
the untenable reply dt:27.04.2021, which has given cause of
action to file the present complaint.
3. After filing of the complaint, this court has taken
cognizance of the offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I.Act.
Sworn statement of the complainant was recorded. Being
satisfied that, there are prima-facie materials to proceed
against accused, summons was issued. After appearance of
the accused, he was enlarged on bail and plea was recorded.
5
C.C.No. 16858/2021
The accused has not pleaded guilty, but submitted that, he
would go for the trial.
4. From the basis of the pleadings, the following
points that arise for my consideration are as follows:-
1. Whether the complainant proves that, the
accused issued cheque bearing No.000821
dt: 26.02.2021 for Rs.3,00,000/-, drawn on
ICICI Bank, Vijayanagar Branch,
Bengaluru, towards discharge of his liability
which was returned unpaid on presentation for
the reason “Drawer signature Differs” and
despite of knowledge of the notice, he has not
paid the said cheque amount and thereby,
committed an offence punishable U/s.138 of
N.I.Act?
2. What order?
5. The sworn statement and the documents marked
at Ex.P.1 to P.7 by the complainant is being treated as the
complainant evidence as per the decision of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in Indian Bank Association Vs. Union of India
6
C.C.No. 16858/2021
and Ors., reported in 2010 (5) SCC 590. Thereafter, the
complainant by further examining got marked Ex.P.8
document and closed his side evidence. (Ex.P.9 was got
marked through the confrontation of the DW.1). On
completion of the complainant evidence, the statement of
the accused as required U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. was read over
and explained to accused, he denied the incriminating
evidence appeared against him and submitted that, he has
the evidence and accordingly, he is being examined as DW.1
and closed his side evidence.
6. Heard from both side. The defence filed his written
argument and relied upon the decisions reported in
ILR 2009 KAR 2331- B. Indramma Vs. Eshwar, 2) (2009)
2 SCC 513 – Kumar Exports Vs. Sharma Carpets
3) 2009 (2) KCCR 1273 – Sathyanarayana Vs.
Jayathertha, 4) 2011 Crl.L.J 552 – Amzad Pasha Vs.
7
C.C.No. 16858/2021
H.N. Laxman, 5) (2014) 2 SCC 236 – John K. Abraham
Vs. Simon C. Abraham an another ; 6) (2015) 1 SCC 99 –
Subraman V/s. Damodara Naidu, AIR 2019 SC 942 –
Anss Rajashekar Vs. Augustus Jeba Ananth & AIR 2019
SC 1983 – Basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa.
All these decisions are dealt on the point of burden of
proof, presumption, rebuttable presumption and the
financial capacity.
7. Perused the materials available on record.
8. My answer to the aforesaid points are as under:-
Point No.1 :- In the Affirmative
Point No.2 :- As per the final order, for the following:-
REASONS
9. Point No.1:- The complainant has filed this
complaint alleging that, the accused has committed an
8
C.C.No. 16858/2021
offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I.Act. He pleads and
asserts that, the accused in discharge of his liability has
issued the cheque bearing No.000821, dt:26.02.2021 for
Rs.3,00,000/-, drawn on ICICI Bank, Vijayanagar Branch,
Bengaluru, which is being dishonored with shara as Funds
Insufficient. Thereby, he got issued the legal notice
dt:17.04.2021 which is served, despite which he has not
chosen to comply it, rather got issued untenable reply
which has given a cause of action to file the complaint.
10. In this scenario, if the documents placed by the
complainant is scrutinized, the complainant in order to
examine the compliance of statutory requirements as
envisaged U/s.138 of NI Act, he got produced the Ex.P.1 the
cheque dt:26.02.2021. The said cheque is returned with an
endorsement as Funds Insufficient as per Ex.P2, the return
advise dt:05.03.2021, Ex.P.3 is the office copy of the legal
9
C.C.No. 16858/2021
notice dt:20.03.2021, Ex.P.4 & 6 are the postal receipts,
Ex.P.5 is the returned RPAD cover which is returned on dt:
07.04.2021 and Ex.P.7 is the postal acknowledgment which
indicates its service as dt:19.04.2021. The present
complaint is filed on 29.06.2021. Here, it is relevant to note
that, though the complainant claim that, he has issued the
demand notice on 22.03.2021 at Ex.P.3 which is being
returned unserved as per Ex.P.5 and again by ascertaining
the temporary address of the accused, has got issued the
demand notice on 17.04.2021 which is being served as per
Ex.P.7, but the complainant has not produced the legal
notice which is alleged to be sent on 17.04.2021. However,
having the complainant got issued the demand notice at
Ex.P.3 at the initial stage from the date of dishonour of the
cheque, the period requires to be computed from the
issuance of the demand notice on 20.03.2021. The Ex.P.5
10C.C.No. 16858/2021
is being returned on 07.04.2021 and if the period is
computed for filing the present compliant, the complainant
ought to have been filed the complaint on or before
21.05.2021. But, however the present complaint is being
filed on 29.06.2021. Here, it is also relevant to note that,
even the accused has questioned the maintainability of the
complaint on the point of limitation. But however, by
gathering the materials available on record, it indicates
that, the present complaint is being made during the period
of Covid-19. At this stage, it is relevant to note the circular
dt:19.01.2022 issued by the Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka wherein Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has
extended the limitation for filing the complaint in view of the
pandemic of Covid-19, in pursuance of the order passed by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.ANo.21/22 in M.A.665/21
in Suomoto W.P. No.3/20 in recognizance for extension of
11C.C.No. 16858/2021
limitation with M.A.29/22 in M.A.665/21 in suo-moto
Writ.petition No.3/20. When the very order passed by the
Hon’ble Apex court with the circular issued by the Hon’ble
High Court of Karnataka extending the time as stated
supra, I am of the considered view that, the referred circular
and order comes to the rescue of the complainant and it
suffices that, the complaint being filed on 29.06.2021 is
well in time.
11. A careful scrutiny of the documents relied by the
complainant goes to show that, a statutory requirement of
Sec.138 of NI Act is being complied with and this complaint
is filed well in time. The complainant has discharged his
initial burden by examining him as PW.1 and by producing
the documents as referred above. Thus, complainant is
entitled to rely on the statutory presumptions enshrined
U/s.118 R/w. Sec. 138 of N.I.Act.
12
C.C.No. 16858/2021
Sec. 118 of the Act reads as thus, 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.
Further Sec.139 of Negotiable Instrument Act provides
for presumption infavour of PA holder. It reads like this, 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 any other liability.
12. A combined reading of the referred sections raises
a presumption infavour of the holder of the cheque that,
she/he has received the same for discharge in whole or in
part of any debt or other liability. No doubt, the said
presumptions of law are rebuttable in nature, the accused
13
C.C.No. 16858/2021
can take probable defense in the scale of preponderance of
probabilities to rebut the presumption available to the
complainant. It is need less to say that, the evidence of the
PW.1 can be rebutted even by effectively cross-examining
the PW.1, rather entering the witness box.
13. So here, it is relevant to note that, whether the
accused by cross examining the PW.1 and also adducing
his evidence as DW.1 has really rebutted the presumption
which requires due consideration. Here, the complainant
claims that, the accused is his relative and his childhood
friend. He claims that, the accused had approached for the
hand loan of Rs.3 lakhs in the month of June 2019
assuring to repay within 12 months and had issued the
cheque at Ex.P.1 assuring its honour. But however on its
presentation, it is being dishonoured as per Ex.P.2. He also
claims that, he also got issued the demand notice, which is
14
C.C.No. 16858/2021
being served on the accused as per Ex.P.7, but rather
complying the demand, has got issued the untenable reply
at Ex.P.9, which has given cause of action to file the
complaint. Thereby claiming that, he had complied the
mandatory provision, he is entitled for the presumption.
On the other hand, though the accused has admitted that,
the complainant is his relative and also the disputed
cheque at Ex.P.1 does belongs to him, but has categorically
denied the loan transaction and also, the issuance of the
cheque to the complainant towards the discharge of the
legal liability. He questions the financial capacity of the
complainant in advancing the loan amount of Rs.3 lakhs
and contend that, as the complainant was his relative, was
oftently visiting his house at Bengaluru and while such visit
has stolen the disputed cheque at Ex.P.1 and has misused
it by forging his signature and thereby, questioning the
15
C.C.No. 16858/2021
service of demand notice, claims that, he has rebutted the
presumption.
14. By gathering the rival claims of the parties with
the oral and documentary evidence available on record, it is
undisputed fact that, the complainant and the accused are
relatives and are known to each other since childhood. It is
also not in dispute that, the disputed cheque at Ex.P.1 does
belongs to the accused and it is also being dishonoured with
the shara as Drawer Signature Differs as per Ex.P2. Here,
the accused has seriously questioned the loan transaction
and also, the issuance of the cheque to the complainant.
The accused has seriously questioned the signature
appearing in the disputed cheque and claims that, it is
being forged by the complainant only to gain unlawfully.
Here, it is not in dispute that, the disputed cheque at Ex.P.1
is being dishonoured with the shara as Drawer signature
16
C.C.No. 16858/2021
Differs as per Ex.P.2. The complainant claim that, it is the
accused who had signed the disputed cheque and he got
the knowledge of the signature differs only when it was
being dishonoured on its presentation. In other words, the
complainant claim that, it is the accused who has
intentionally signed in a different manner so as to get the
disputed cheque dishonoured. The complainant has also
brought to the notice of this court, the manner how the
accused used to sign in a different manner and the conduct
of the accused in signing it. The complainant has taken
this court to the vakalathnama filed by the accused, the
recorded plea of the accused, the statement recorded U/s.
313 of Cr.P.C. and the deposition of the accused.
15. On perusal of these documents it goes to indicate
that, though the accused has signed as Manjunatha D.G. in
vakalathnama, the recorded plea and the deposition, but on
17
C.C.No. 16858/2021
perusal of the statement recorded U/s 313 of Cr.P.C, it goes
to indicate that, the accused has affixed his signature only
with the name as Manjunatha. The accused has not made
out a ground or placed any probable evidence as to why he
has affixed his signature as Manjunatha in the statement
recorded U/s. 313 of Cr.P.C. when he has affixed his
signature in other documents as Manjunatha D.G. It is also
relevant to not that, the process from this court is being
issued through the RPAD and it is being served on the
accused. Even in the postal acknowledgment, the accused
has affixed his signature in English and Kannada language
as Manju/ಮಂಜು. So, here the conduct of the accused makes
more relevant so as to appreciate the endorsement issued
by the bank at Ex.P.2. The accused has also not made any
efforts to summon the specimen signatures submitted to
his bank while he got opened the account nor he has made
18
C.C.No. 16858/2021
any efforts to establish that, the signature appearing in the
disputed cheque was never done by him. He could have
also taken some expert opinion to establish that, the
signature appearing in the disputed cheque never belongs to
him. Absolutely, the accused has not placed any probable
evidence to establish the signature appearing therein does
not belongs to him, but rather the complainant establishing
the cheque at Ex.P.1 belongs to the accused and he affixing
his signature, an presumption could be drawn that, the
signature appearing at Ex.P.1(a) does belongs to the
accused and he has intentionally affixed his signature in a
different manner.
16. The complainant claims that, he had advanced
Rs.3 lakhs in the month of June 2019 which is being
seriously disputed by the accused by questioning the
financial capacity. It is an admitted fact that, apart from
19
C.C.No. 16858/2021
the disputed cheque at Ex.P.1, there is no other document
on which the complainant has placed his reliance. As said,
the complainant and the accused are relatives and are well
acquainted with each other, is not in dispute. Here, the
complainant claim that, he is working as a ambulance
driver in Jayacharamaraja Ayurvedic Hospital and his
monthly salary is at Rs.17,800/-. He also claims that, he
was owning a cab in the year 2019 and he was working as
a driver in HBC private Ltd., company. He also claims that,
he was earning Rs.55,000/- to Rs.60,000/- p.m. in the
year 2019 through the said company. Though the
complainant deposes that, he had no impediment to
produce the documents pertaining to the source of income
of the particular year and so also, of he owning the vehicle
at a particular point of time, but he has not chosen to
produce any documents to that regard, but however he has
20
C.C.No. 16858/2021
got produced the bank statement at Ex.P.8. No doubt, on
perusal of Ex.P.8 nowhere it could be found that, the
complainant was having Rs.3 lakhs at a particular time, but
however the accused has also categorically admitted that,
he had acknowledged Rs.73,000/- on different dates from
the complainant. No doubt, the accused claim that, he has
repaid Rs.73,000/-, but when the accused from the initial
stage has denied the loan transaction and the receipt of
Rs.3 lakhs, the very admission of the accused suffices that,
he has acknowledged Rs.3 lakh from the complainant.
Because, even the complainant claim that, he had advanced
Rs.73,000/- through the bank transaction and
Rs.2,27,000/- through the cash transaction. If really, there
was no loan transaction, the accused could have disputed
the loan transaction through out the entire case, rather
admitting the receipt of Rs.73,000/-. Moreso, even, he had
21
C.C.No. 16858/2021
no impediment to disclose this fact at the initial stage or in
the course of the cross examination of the Pw.1 or in his
defence evidence. But rather, he keeping silence and by
suppressing the receipt of Rs.73,000/- which could be
gathered from Ex.P.8, I am of the considered view that, the
complainant was financially well to advance the loan
amount of Rs.3 lakhs. Perhaps, even though the accused
has questioned the occupation of the complainant, his
source of income and so also, of he owning the cab which
was attached to the HBC Pvt. Ltd, company, but in his cross
examination he has pleaded his ignorance with regard to
the said facts. So, here again an inference could be drawn
that, he pleading his ignorance and he not seriously
disputing the source of income and the occupation of the
complainant at a particular point of time, it has to be
22
C.C.No. 16858/2021
construed that, the complainant was financially well to
advance Rs.3 lakhs.
17. It is an admitted fact that, apart from the disputed
cheque at Ex.P.1, there is no other documents on which the
complainant has placed his reliance. Here, the complainant
claim that, as the accused is his relative, he has collected
only the disputed cheque. The accused has seriously
disputed the loan transaction of Rs.3 lakhs. As referred
above, the accused has admitted the receipt of
Rs.73,000/-. Here, it cannot be construed that, merely the
accused admitting the receipt of Rs.73,000/-, he has
admitted the loan transaction of Rs.3 lakhs. The burden
would be upon the complainant to establish the loan
transaction for Rs.3 Lakhs. The complainant has reiterated
the contents of the loan transaction in his affidavit evidence
which requires to be appreciated. Here, it would not be
23
C.C.No. 16858/2021
wrong to say that, apart from the admission of the accused
that, he has acknowledged Rs.73,000/- from the
complainant, his defence also makes more probable so as to
appreciate the loan transaction of Rs.3 Lakhs. No doubt,
the accused claim that, he and the complainant were
occupying a single premises on rent at Sunkadakatte
pipeline, but it was being denied by the complainant. Here,
though the suggestion is being denied by the complainant
and the accused claim that, the complainant used to visit
his house oftenly and while such visit had stolen the
disputed cheque, but admittedly there is no evidence
forthcoming to appreciate the fact of the complainant and
the accused were residing in a single premises or the
complainant stoling the disputed cheque. Here, it is also
relevant to note that, though the accused at the initial stage
has disputed the receipt of the demand notice, but during
24
C.C.No. 16858/2021
the course of his cross examination, he has categorically
admitted the issuance of reply notice at Ex.P.9. In other
words, he admitting the issuance of reply notice at Ex.P.9,
he has indirectly admitted the service of demand notice. If
really, the defense raised by the accused is acceptable more
particularly the complainant stoling the disputed cheque
and misusing it, certainly nothing had prevented the
accused to place this fact in his reply notice which would
have certainly supported his defence But, on perusal of
reply notice at Ex.P.9, except a bare denial of loan
transaction and the bare denial of not issuing the disputed
cheque to the complainant, he has not averred any other
facts which could have supported his defence.
18. If really, the defence raised by the accused is
acceptable, nothing had prevented the accused to disclose
all the relevant facts, which would have come to his
25
C.C.No. 16858/2021
rescue. But, rather for the first time, during the course of
the evidence, he has come up with this defence. Moreso, the
very conduct of the accused with regard to the denial of the
service of demand notice and in the later stage, he
admitting the service of demand notice by issuing the reply
at Ex.P.9 also suffices that, he has not approached the
court with the clean hands. Moreso, if the accused had
not issued the cheque to the complainant towards the
discharge of legal liability, certainly he had also no
impediment to initiate some legal action against the
complainant, which also not forthcoming. In other words, it
goes to indicate that, having the accused issued the cheque
towards the discharge of legal liability, he has not opted to
take any appropriate steps, which also goes to the root of
the defence case. Having, the accused failed to take
appropriate steps at a particular point of time and having
26
C.C.No. 16858/2021
he failed to place a probable evidence to appreciate his
defence, I am of the considered view the stand taken by the
accused with regard to the complainant stoling the disputed
cheque, is only to avoid the liability under the cheque. In
other words, the complainant has established the loan
transaction and the issuance of the disputed cheque is
towards the discharge of the legal liability.
19. In the decision reported in (2021) 5 SCC 283 –
Kalamani Tex and Another., Vs. P.Balasubramanian,
(2010) 11 SCC 441- Rangappa Vs. Sri.Mohan., Wherein
it is held that, when once the signature of an accused on
the cheque is established, than the reverse onus clauses
become operative, also aptly applies to the case in hand.
When the complainant has established the accused having
issued the cheque at Ex.P.1 towards the discharge of loan
liability and their existed a legally enforceable debt, the
27
C.C.No. 16858/2021
onus to disprove it, shifts on the accused which is not been
proved by placing positive evidence. In this background,
having the accused not disputed the complainant case by
placing positive evidence, I am of the considered view that,
the cheque issued by the accused at Ex.P1 is for the legally
enforceable debt and this fact is being established by the
complainant by placing cogent and positive evidence which
is not rebutted by the other side.
20. It is need less to say that, documentary evidence
do prevail on the oral evidence. Absolutely, there is no
evidence available on record, to hold that, the disputed
cheque was being stolen by the complainant. So, in this
back ground when the provisions U/s.118 and 139 of N.I.
Act is looked into, it raises the presumption in favour of the
holder of the cheque that, he has received the same for
discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability.
28
C.C.No. 16858/2021
It also permits the complainant to fill the cheque having
established the Ex.P.1 being issued towards the discharge
of loan liability. As said above, the accused has not
disputed the cheque does pertains to him. It could be said
that, the accused has not disputed the cheque in question
and signature found therein. When the drawer has admitted
the issuance of cheque as well as the signature present
therein, the presumption envisaged U/s.118 R/w.139 of
N.I.Act would operate infavour of the complainant. The said
provisions lies on a special rule of evidence applicable to
negotiable instruments. The presumption is one of law and
thereunder the court shall presume that, the instrument
was endorsed for consideration. So also, in the absence of
contrary evidence on behalf of the accused, the presumption
U/s.118 of N.I.Act goes in favour of the complainant. No
doubt, as said statutory presumptions are rebuttable in
29
C.C.No. 16858/2021
nature, but when the complainant has relied upon the
statutory presumptions enshrined U/s.118 R/w.Sec.139 of
N.I.Act, it is for the accused to rebut the presumption with
cogent and convincing evidence.
21. It is worth to note that, Sec.106 of Indian
Evidence Act postulates that, the burden is on the accused
to establish the fact which is especially within its
knowledge. This provision is exception to the general rule
that, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution to
establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt. In that view
of matter, the burden is on the accused to prove that, the
cheque in question was not issued for discharge of any
liability. But, despite the accused has taken the defence
that, the Ex.P.1 was not issued towards the legal liability to
the complainant, but the said fact and the version is not
been established. From the discussion made supra, it could
30
C.C.No. 16858/2021
be said that, the complainant has established his case by
placing positive evidence. On the other hand, the accused
failed to to establish his defence by placing probable defence
and also, failed to elicit the said fact from the mouth of the
PW.1. Nodoubt, the principles enumerated in the decision
relied by the accused cannot be denied, but with due
respect, the said decisions are not applicable to the case in
hand. In this back ground, the case of the complainant
requires to be accepted. The evidence placed on record
establishes that, the complainant has proved that, for
discharge of the legal liability, the accused has issued
Ex.P.1 and it is being dishonored as per Ex.P.2. Therefore,
Point No.1 is answered in the “Affirmative’.
22. Point No.2:- For the reasons discussed in the
point No.1, the complainant has proved the guilt of the
accused punishable U/s.138 of N.I.Act. The Hon’ble Apex
31
C.C.No. 16858/2021
Court also dealt in the decision reported in (2018) 1 SCC
560, M/s. Meters and Instrument Pvt. Ltd., Vs.
Kanchana Mehta., wherein It is held that “the object of
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 the later stage subject to
appropriate compensation has may be found acceptable to
the parties or the court”. By considering the decision, it could
be said that, the time when the transaction has taken place
and the primary object of the provision being kept in mind, I
am of the considered view that rather imposing punitive
sentence, if sentence of fine is imposed with a direction to
compensate the complainant for its monetary loss by
awarding compensation U/s.396 of BNSS 2023, it would
meet the ends of justice. By considering these aspects, I am
32
C.C.No. 16858/2021
of the considered view that, it would be just and proper to
impose fine of Rs.3,05,000/-. Out of the compensation of
Rs.3,05,000/-, an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- shall be
awarded to the complainant U/s.396 of BNSS 2023.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following :.
ORDER
Acting U/s.278(2) of BNSS -2023
(Old Correspondence No. 255(2) of Code of
Criminal Procedure), the accused is convicted for
the offence punishable under section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, the accused is
sentenced to pay fine of Rs.3,05,000/- (Rupees
Three Lakhs and Five Thousand Only) .
In default thereof, the accused shall undergo
simple imprisonment for the term of one year.
Acting U/s. 396 of BNSS - 2023 (Old
Correspondence No.357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C), it is
ordered that, Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs
Only) there from shall be paid to the complainant
as compensation. The remaining fine amount of
Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) is
33
C.C.No. 16858/2021
defrayed to the state for the expenses incurred in
the prosecution.
The office is to furnish the free copy of this
Judgment to the accused forthwith.
(Directly dictated to stenographer on computer, typed by her, revised by me and
then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12th day of May 2025).
Digitally signed
JAI by JAI SHANKAR
SHANKAR J
Date: 2025.05.12
J 14:55:37 +0530
(JAI SHANKAR.J)
XXII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
List of witnesses examined on behalf of complainant:-
PW.1 : Sri. Kumara D.N
List of exhibits marked on behalf of complainant:-
Ex.P.1 : Original cheque
Ex.P1(a) : Signature of the accused
Ex.P2 : Bank Memo
Ex.P3 Legal notice
Ex.P4 : Postal receipt
34
C.C.No. 16858/2021
Ex.P5 : Returned unserved cover
Ex.P6 : Postal receipt
Ex.P7 : Postal acknowledgment
Ex.P8 : Certified copy of bank statement
Ex.P9 : Reply notice
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the accused:-
DW.1 : Sri. Manjunath D.G
List of exhibits marked on behalf of the accused:-
-Nil-
Digitally signed
JAI by JAI SHANKAR
SHANKAR J
Date: 2025.05.12
J 14:55:42 +0530
(JAI SHANKAR.J)
XXII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bengaluru.
35
C.C.No. 16858/2021