Bangalore District Court
M/S. Sinuos Infra Pvt Ltd vs Paramanna.M on 18 June, 2025
KABC030894522022
IN THE COURT OF XXXVIII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
~:PRESENT:~
SRI. VEERESH KUMAR C.K. B.A.L, LL.M, CC [Cyber Laws]
XXXVIII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
BENGALURU
C.C. No.38349/2022
Date Of Judgment: 18th day of June, 2025
M/s. Sinuous Infra Pvt. Ltd.
Having its registered office at
No.2201, World Trade Centre
Brigade Gateway Campus
Dr.Rajkumar Road
Malleshwaram West
Bengaluru-560 055
Rep. By its Director Mr.Santhosh G ...Complainant
(By Shri. S. Hemanth Bharadwaj, Advocate)
----//VERSUS//----
Mr.Paramanna.M
Proprietor
M/s.Parmanna Civil Contractor
S/o.Mukkanna,
Teggelli, Shorapur
Yadgir-585 216
also at:
Post Balchabal
Teggali, Shorapur,
Yadgir-585 224 ...Accused
(Rep.By Sri.M.V.Anoop Kumar, Advocate )
KABC030894522022 JUDGMENT CC N O.38349/2022
-: 2:-
:: J U D G M E N T :
:
T
his case emanates from a private complaint filed by thecomplainant alleging that the accused has committed
the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881, by issuing cheques for the total
amount of Rs.42,00,000/-, and the same was dishonored.
2 . THE ESSENTIAL FACTS:
It is the case of the complainant that it is a Company
registered under the Companies Act, 2013 and has its
registered office as stated in the cause title. The Complainant
is being represented by its director. The Complainant is
involved in the business of undertaking
developmental/constructional activities, Interior design,
Electrical works, Fabrication, Elevator servicing and other civil
works including procuring of materials for its clients and it is
a reputed company in the area of the business. Accused is a
Civil contractor by profession and he is also the proprietor of
the proprietorship concern. The accused approached the
KABC030894522022 JUDGMENT CC N O.38349/2022
-: 3:-
Complainant in the month of July, 2019 and had offered to
undertake sub-contracting work from the Complainant
assuring them that he had sufficient men, material, technical
requisites to sustain the work. Based upon the assurances of
the Accused, the Complainant had agreed to issue work order
and in pursuance of the same ‘Letters of Indent’ came to be
executed between the Complainant and the Accused. There
are a total of four letter of indents issued to the Accused and
in total three purchase/work orders have been placed in
favour of the accused. The accused was issued work orders
for supply of skilled and semi-skilled labourers following the
‘on ground’ site inspections. In the letters of indent it was
specifically provided for damages to be paid at the rate of 30%
of the contract amount in case of non-fulfillment of the
conditions by the Accused and the work order would be liable
to be terminated. The work orders issued to the Accused by
the Complainant stood unfulfilled and the contracts stood
breached. The termination of the purchase/work orders issued
KABC030894522022 JUDGMENT CC N O.38349/2022
-: 4:-
to the Accused had been communicated to the Accused. The
Accused had accepted the termination and had undertaken to
pay the penalties that were required to be paid by him as per
the terms and conditions of the contracts entered into between
the Complainant and the Accused. In partial discharge of the
liability of the Accused, he had issued a cheque bearing No.
032452 for an amount of Rs. 42,00,000/- in the year 2020
and had assured to the Complainant that he would make the
payment. As per the instructions of the accused, when the
said cheque was presented for encashment, the same was
returned unpaid with an endorsement as ‘payment stopped by
the drawer’. For which the complainant got issued demand
notice on the accused. In-spite of service of the same, accused
has not come forward to make payment nor has replied to the
accused. The accused has intentionally issued the cheque
without maintaining sufficient balance in his bank account
and thereby committed the offence punishable u/S.138 of the
N.I. Act. Hence, the present complaint.
KABC030894522022 JUDGMENT CC N O.38349/2022
-: 5:-
3. On presentation of the complaint, this Court has
taken cognizance for the offence punishable U/sec. 138 of N.I.
Act. The summons were issued to the accused persons. In
pursuance to the service of summons, the accused has put his
appearance through his Counsel and was enlarged on bail.
4. The complaint copies were furnished to the accused
persons as per Sec. 207 of Cr. P. C. The plea was recorded
under Sec. 251 of Cr.P.C. The accusation was read over to the
accused to which he has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried.
5. To substantiate the case, the complainant has
examined its Director as PW.1 and got marked documents as
Ex.P.1 to 33 and he is fully cross examined. After completion
of complainant evidence, the statement of the accused U/Sec.
313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded. He has denied all incriminating
circumstances appearing against him. The accused got
examined himself as DW.1 and got marked Ex.D.1.
KABC030894522022 JUDGMENT CC N O.38349/2022
-: 6:-
6. Heard the arguments of both sides. The learned
Counsel for the complainant filed Written arguments along
with citations. Meticulously perused the available materials on
record.
7. Based on the above materials the points that would
arise for consideration are as follows:
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Whether the complainant proves that
the accused has issued a cheque
bearing No. No.032452 dated:
04/01/2022 in favour of complainant
for sum of Rs. 42,00,000/- in
discharge of legally enforceable debt or
liability and same are dishonored due
to “Payment Stopped by Drawer” and
thereby committed an offence
punishable U/Sec. 138 of N.I. Act ?
2. What order ?
8. The above points are answered as below:
Point No.1: In the Negative.
Point No.2: As per final order for the following:-
KABC030894522022 JUDGMENT CC N O.38349/2022
-: 7:-
::REASONS::
9. On Point No.1: The further narration of the entire
averments of the complaint is desisted in order to avoid the
repetition, as already narrated at the inception.
10. However, it is well settled that whenever
complainant alleged that the accused persons have committed
an offence punishable U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act, obviously, the
complainant has to establish that there was a legally
enforceable debt and to discharge the said legally enforceable
debt, the accused persons have issued the cheques and
subsequently the said cheques have been dishonored in the
account of the drawer/accused. Keeping in view of these main
and important ingredients of section 138 of N.I. Act, this Court
proceeds to discuss the evidence available on record.
11. As already been stated above, the complainant has
examined its Director as PW.1. He has filed affidavit in lieu of
their examination in chief U/Sec.145 of N.I. Act reiterating the
KABC030894522022 JUDGMENT CC N O.38349/2022
-: 8:-
entire averments of the complaint and got marked Ex.P.1 to
33.
12. The Ex.P.1, 2 are the company registration letter
and Board resolution, Ex.P.3 to 6 are the four Indent letters
(59 pages), Exs.P.7 to 9 are the three work orders, Ex.P.10,11
are the two Indent Termination letters, Ex.P.12 is the
termination acceptance letter, Ex.P.13 is the cheque bearing
No.032452 dt.4/01/2022 for Rs.42,00,000/-, Ex.P.14 is the
Bank Endorsement “Payment stopped by Drawer”, Ex.P.15 is
the copy of Legal notice, Ex.P.16 is the two postal receipts,
Ex.P.17,18 are the two postal acknowledgments, Ex.P.19 is
the GST Registration certificate, Ex.P.20 is the copy of Virtual
office, agreement, Ex.P.21 is the copy of service agreement,
Ex.P.22 is the copy of renewal agreement, Ex.P.23 is the copy
of E-mail print out, Ex.P.24 is the copy of work order, Ex.P.25
is the copy of work order, Ex.P.26 is the copy of the certificate
of incorporation, Ex.P.27 is the copy of IT registration notice of
South Africa, Ex.P.28 is the copy of office agreement, Ex.P.29
KABC030894522022 JUDGMENT CC N O.38349/2022
-: 9:-
is the work order, Ex.P.30 is the work order, Ex.P.31 is the
copy of office agreement, Ex.P.32 is the copy of office
agreement and Ex.P.33 is the Section 65-B certificate. On
perusal of Ex.P.13 makes it clear that it supports the stand
taken by the complainant herein, Ex.P.14 is the YES Bank
Ltd, Banashankari 3rd stage branch, Bengaluru, endorsement,
which discloses that the aforesaid cheque has been
dishonored on 05/01/2022 for the reason of Payment stopped
by drawer. As per clause (a) of proviso to Sec.138 of N.I. Act
the cheque is to be presented for encashment within the
period of its validity from the date on which the cheque has
been issued. The Ex.P.13 shows it was presented on
05/01/2022, which is within the prescribed period.
13. As per clause (b) of proviso to Sec. 138 of N.I. Act,
the complainant is required to issue notice, in writing, to the
drawer/accused making a demand for repayment of the said
cheque amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of
information about the dishonor of the cheque. Ex.P.15 is the
KABC030894522022 JUDGMENT CC N O.38349/2022
-: 10:-
copy of Legal notice, Ex.P.16 is the two postal receipts,
Ex.P.17,18 are the two postal acknowledgments. Thereby, it is
found that the complainant has issued legal notice within 30
days from the date of knowledge of dishonor of cheque. Thus,
the provisions of clause (a) & (b) of proviso to Sec.138 of N.I.
Act have been complied with.
14. As per clause (c) of the proviso to Sec. 138 of N.I.
Act, the drawer/accused is entitled to have 15 days time to
make the payment of the cheque amount. Even after elapse of
15 days time for making payment the accused has not made
payment. Further the clause (b) of Sec. 142 of N.I. Act makes it
clear that the complaint has to be filed within 30 days from
the date of cause of action arose. The endorsement made by
this Court on the complaint reveals that the complainant
presented the complaint on 30/03/2022 and as such, this
complaint is well within the period of limitation. Therefore, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the complainant has
complied all the necessary components which attracts section
KABC030894522022 JUDGMENT CC N O.38349/2022
-: 11:-
138 of N.I. Act. Even the accused has not challenged any of
the mandatory requirements to be complied by the
complainant.
15. As per the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme in case of
APS FOREX SERVICES PRIVATE LTD., vs. SHAKTI
INTERNATIONAL FASHION LINKERS AND ORS., reported in
[2020] ACR 457 wherein it is held that, once accused has
admitted issuance of cheque which bears his signature, there
is presumption that there exists legally enforceable debt or
liability under Sec.139 of N.I. Act. In the present case the
issuance of the cheque and the signature on the cheque is not
disputed by the accused persons. The said decision is aptly
applicable for raising presumption in favour of complainant.
ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE ON REBUTTAL
OF PRESUMPTION BY THE ACCUSED.
17. In order to rebut the presumption the accused has
set up the following defence,
1) there is no legally recoverable debt,
2) the security cheques have been misused by the complainant,
KABC030894522022 JUDGMENT CC N O.38349/2022
-: 12:-
3) There was no work order issued in favour of the accused by
the complainant,
4) The complainant has committed fraud on the accused and he
also committed fraud on several other individuals,
5) the multiple FIRs are registered against the accused for
committing a fraud and also he was arrested,
6) the signature of the accused on Ex.P.12 i.e., acceptance of
penalty, was taken on blank sheet and the accused has not
consented to the same.
18. Adverting to the defences together, at the outset the
the accused who seeks to rebut the presumption as to legally
enforceable debt subsists in favour of the complaint must
establish his defense on the preponderance of probability. He
must raise genuine suspicion as to the case of the
complainant. The defence raised by the accused has to be
probable and it must casts shadow on the case of the
complainant, which is sufficient because the standard of
proving the defence is preponderance of probability and not
proof beyond reasonable doubt. The same is held in decision
KABC030894522022 JUDGMENT CC N O.38349/2022
-: 13:-
of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2006(3) Crimes 117 SC
between M.S.Narayana Menon @ Mani vs. State of Kerala and
another.
19. The relationship between the complainant and
accused germinated based upon the agreement for supply of
Civil labour, which is produced at Ex.P.3, which was entered
as on 23.07.2019. Again another agreement was entered
between complainant and accused on 25.07.2019 for supply of
labour, which is produced at Ex.P.4. As on 03.09.2019 a
agreement for deposit and acceptance for a company came to
be entered on e-stamp paper, which is produced at Ex.P.5. As
on 19.09.2019 and 13.02.2020 two agreements for supply of
river sand and M sand was entered between complainant and
accused, which is produced at Ex.P.6. In Ex.P.5 there is a
mention that the complainant had received Rs.1,50,000/- was
safety deposit from the accused. It is found from Ex.P.6, that
the letter of intent came to be issued in favour of the accused
from complainant on receipt of security cheque of the accused
KABC030894522022 JUDGMENT CC N O.38349/2022
-: 14:-
for sum of Rs.42,00,000/- bearing No.032452, which is
nonetheless the cheque in question at Ex.P.13. There is even
mention of another two cheques of different banks. Then as
per Ex.P.7, 8, ,9 the purchase orders were issued in favour of
accused by the complainant as on 23.07.2019, 19.09.2019
and 25.11.2019 respectively for supply of labour.
20. It is found from the records that when the things
stood thus, the complainant by letter of termination dated
18.11.2019, which is produced at Ex.P.10, terminated the
business contract with the accused. The said recital of
termination states that the complainant had terminated the
labour supply order and sand supply project with immediate
effect and it also states that the labour supply project value of
Rs.1,68,48,000/- and the penalty for project termination was
Rs.25,27,200/-, which was supposed to be paid within
22.11.2019. Again on 25.11.2019 the agreement for supply of
labour and sand project was terminated by the complainant
KABC030894522022 JUDGMENT CC N O.38349/2022
-: 15:-
and levied penalty of 15% of the project which comes up to
Rs.35,64,000/-, which is produced at Ex.P.11.
DIFFERENT AGREEMENTS.
21. The sum and substance of the above agreement and
termination letters is that the complainant entered into three
agreements with the accused, in which Ex.P.3 and P.4 were for
supply of civil labours and Ex.P.5 was supply of RIVER SAND
AND M SAND. In the meanwhile as per Ex.P.7 to P.9 purchase
orders were issued. The said agreements were terminated by
way of termination letters at Ex.P.10 and 11. Then on
13.02.2020 an agreement came to be entered which is
addressed and alleged to be signed by the accused as on
09.01.2020 and accused has totally denied it, which is
produced at Ex.P.12. For the purpose of better clarity the
chart is prepared below:
Sl. Description Dates Document
No.
marked
01 Civil Labour supply agreement 23.07.2019 Ex. P.3
02 Civil Labour supply agreement 25.07.2019 Ex. P.4
03 River Sand and M Sand supply 19.09.2019 Ex. P.5
KABC030894522022 JUDGMENT CC N O.38349/2022
-: 16:-
agreement
04 Purchase order for labour supply 23.07.2019 Ex. P.7
05 Purchase order for labour supply 19.09.2019 Ex. P.8
06 Purchase order for labour supply 25.11.2019 Ex. P.9
07 Letter of termination 18.11.2019 Ex. P.10
08 Second Letter of termination 09.01.2020 Ex. P.11
09 Project termination acceptance for 13.02.2020 Ex. P.12
penalty amount
22. In the background of the above transactions
between complainant and accused, now adverting to the
aspect of liability, wherein liability is thrust on the accused is
based upon his acceptance of termination and penalty for non-
supply of labour and sand, which is at Ex.P.12 for sum of Rs.
35,64,000/- and with GST amount of Rs.6,41,520/- which
comes upto Rs.42,05,520/-. It has been rounded upto
Rs.42,00,000/-. The said agreement also states that the
complainant has received cheque in lieu of penalty for sum of
Rs.42,00,000/- and the said cheque is at Ex.P.13. The said
cheque is dishonored for the reason of ‘payment stopped by
drawer’. It is clearly found from the records as already
KABC030894522022 JUDGMENT CC N O.38349/2022
-: 17:-
discussed above, the cheque in question at Ex.P.13, was not
issued at the time of signing the penalty acceptance agreement
however the same was initially procured by the complainant
while the accused signing Ex.P. 6.
ADVANCE CONSIDERATION BY THE ACCUSED.
23. On perusal of Ex.P.5, it is found that the
complainant himself has admitted and issued a letter to the
accused stating that he has received a payment of
Rs.1,50,000/- for safety deposit. Apart from that the accused
states that he has given Rs.3,00,000/- to complainant by way
of bank transfer and another Rs.4,00,000/- by cash. There
are no documents are produced to support the said claim.
Nevertheless, the admission of the complainant at Ex.P.5
would conclusively state that the complainant has received
Rs.1,50,000/- from the accused. As already stated above, the
said amount is received for the purpose of safety deposit.
KABC030894522022 JUDGMENT CC N O.38349/2022
-: 18:-
NO CONSIDERATION BY THE COMPLAINANT.
24. In the present case the complainant has not given
or paid any single rupee as advance to the accused for supply
of labour and sand, in spite of numerous of agreements are
entered by the complainant on their letter head and even the
letter of indent is issued by the complainant in favour of the
accused on their letter head. It is the cardinal principle of law
and also as per section 10 and 25 of Indian Contract Act,
agreement without consideration is void. For any agreement
there should be promise/offer and acceptance, followed by
consideration without consideration there cannot be any
agreement. In a genuine business transaction the person
availing the service would first make payment or advance
payment and avail services or goods. The complainant has not
given any consideration amount to the accused. However, in
the present case the accused himself has given an advance to
the complainant to provide the service of labour and M sand,
which is very usual.
KABC030894522022 JUDGMENT CC N O.38349/2022
-: 19:-
ANTECEDENTS OF COMPLAINANT.
25. It is the version and defence of the accused that the
complainant and its representative who is examined as PW.1
by named Santhosh. G and his wife are habitually involved in
cheating the gullible persons from semi urban areas under the
pretext of providing labour contract. During the course of the
cross examination, PW.1 has admitted that a criminal case is
initiated against him lodged by one Mr.Tirupathi for cheating
him in the same fashion and the FIR is lodged on PW.1, for
which even the PW.1 was in judicial custody. Even the FIR
and the information sheet was confronted to PW.1 and he has
admitted the same, which was marked as Ex.D.1. The recitals
of the said complaint is that the PW.1 has received
Rs.19,21,000/- on the pretext of issuance of labour supply
contract and thereafter he has not kept up his promise. PW.1
also admits that he has also entered into similar agreement
with one person by name Mr. Umakanth.
KABC030894522022 JUDGMENT CC N O.38349/2022
-: 20:-
FICTITIOUS PROJECTS | IRRATIONALITY.
26. As per the averments of the complaint it is averred
that the complainant is involved in developmental and
constructional activities. In this connection a question was
posed during the course of cross examination of PW.1, seeking
for documents or any communication for requirement of civil
labourers and also about the sub-contract, to which PW.1
stated that he need to search the documents at his office.
Even the projects of the complainant were questioned to which
the complainant has not produced any such documents to
show that he had a requirement of any communication for
supply of labour and M sand. PW.1 goes on to depose that he
did not have agreement for sale of M sand and River Sand with
his clients and he would store the same at his place and
thereafter he would sell as and when there is requirement. It
is also found that he had no place of his own to store M Sand
and River Sand and he was storing at his friend’s place with
whom he had MOU. However, no such MOU is produced by
KABC030894522022 JUDGMENT CC N O.38349/2022
-: 21:-
the complainant in the present case. On perusal of Ex.P.2 to
P.6 and P.10 to P.12, which goes to show that the complainant
is well aware of the process of documentation in regard to
contracts, as they have entered into various agreements on
their letter heads. However, he has not entered into any
contract for supply of River and M Sand to his
clients/vendors.
27. The agreement at Ex.P.3, P.4 does not state about
any kind of ongoing projects of the complainant or any project
allotted to complainant or he was sub-contractor, of which
there was requirement of labour supply up to 180 labourers.
In the letter of termination at Ex.P.10, the complainant states
that the accused was given last chance for deployment labour
for Patna site after confirmation from the accused. The Patna
is in the state of Bihar, which is around 2054 Kms. from
Bengaluru. If 180 labourers were to be supplied to Patna from
Bengaluru or from Yadgir which is the place of the accused, it
requires huge amount of preparation of travel, food and
KABC030894522022 JUDGMENT CC N O.38349/2022
-: 22:-
accommodation. Even necessary permits are required from the
appropriate Govt. Usually the accommodation is taken care by
the main vendor who executes the project or the sub-
contractor. In the present there is not even single
communication from the complainant to accused for supply of
labour to Patna site. Merely the purchase orders are issued at
Ex.P.7 to 9, for supply of labourers.
INCONSISTENCIES IN AGREEMENTS | FOUL PLAY.
28. Another very interest fact of the alleged transaction
between the complainant and accused is that as per Ex.P.6,
an agreement was entered between them dated 13/02/2020,
in regard to River Sand and M-sand supply and other services
in the nature of civil work. However, as per Ex.P.12, on the
very same day i.e., 13/02/2020, a letter of termination of
labour supply and sand supply was terminated stating that it
was terminated on 09/01/2020. and it is also stated that the
new project will be issued subject to payment of penalty. By
this it is inferred that all the things are happening
KABC030894522022 JUDGMENT CC N O.38349/2022
-: 23:-
simultaneously such as entering into agreement on
13/02/2020 for another project and on the same day earlier
project is terminated and acceptance of penalty is issued again
on 13/02/2020. From a perspective of ordinary prudent man
it is very strange to reconcile all these aspects in a business
dynamics. When the accused is perceived to be an incapable
to execute the contract entered by him and in his favour
another same project is given by the complainant on an
different agreement. The accused who himself has given
advance to complainant and he would accept the liability for
himself up to Rs. 42, 00,000/-. The same is avows to logic and
practical business standards. All it bows down to a foul play
by the complainant to trap the accused into liability and
penalty. More so it is found this has been the modus operandi
of the complainant to cheat under garb of procuring the
projects. This is sheer abuse of process of law by the
complainant against accused for wrongful gain.
KABC030894522022 JUDGMENT CC N O.38349/2022
-: 24:-
LEGAL RECOVERABLE DEBT OR LIABILITY OF PENALTY.
29. Section 138 of N.I.Act makes it explicitly clear in its
explanation that debt or other liability means legally
enforceable debt or other liability. A legal liability is defined
in Black’s law dictionary by Henry Campbell Black, revised 4th
edition, 1968 as, a liability which court recognize and enforce
as between parties litigant. It is basically a right which is
recognized under law not expressly barred with a lawful
consideration and with a lawful object.
30. The complainant in order to substantiate the
recovery of damages by way of penalty has to prove that the
same is legal liability or the losses suffered by the complainant
due to act of the accused. On entire meticulous perusal of the
complaint and evidence in lieu of chief, it is found that the
complainant has not suffered any of loss of single rupees and
has claimed damages up to Rs. 42,00,000/-, which has
absolutely no basis. The agreement is entered between the
complainant and accused. The accused as a security issued
KABC030894522022 JUDGMENT CC N O.38349/2022
-: 25:-
three cheques and above all he himself has paid advance
amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- as per Ex.P.5. The said advance
amount is confiscated by the complainant. Again the penalty
is imposed on the accused for not providing the labours. At the
first instance the complainant has to show that he had on
going project in hand and due to non-supply of labours the
project was halted. However, there is absolutely no particulars
from the complainant. He had to show to the Court the actual
damages caused to them due to the act of the accused and to
impose penalty. The onus is on the complainant to show the
actual damages when the accused has challenged/rebutted
during the course of cross examination in regard to the actual
damages caused to them.
31. In absence of non-disclosure of actual damages to
the complainant, the damages claimed under letter of
acceptance of penalty at Ex.P.12 happens to be fiction and it
does not come under the ambit of legally recoverable liability
and unenforceable.
KABC030894522022 JUDGMENT CC N O.38349/2022
-: 26:-
32. The Hon’ble Supreme Court Of India in case of
RAJESH JAIN vs. AJAY SINGH reported in (2023) 10 SCC 148,
held that,
“Therefore, in fine, it can be said that once the
accused adduces evidence to the satisfaction of the
court that on a preponderance of probabilities there
exists no debt/liability in the manner pleaded in the
complaint or the demand notice or the affidavit-
evidence, the burden shifts to the complainant and the
presumption “disappears” and does not haunt the
accused any longer. The onus having now shifted to
the complainant, he will be obliged to prove the
existence of a debt/liability as a matter of fact and his
failure to prove would result in dismissal of his
complaint case. Thereafter, the presumption under
section 139 does not again come to the complainant’s
rescue. Once both parties have adduced evidence, the
court has to consider the same and the burden of proof
loses all its importance. [Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa
AIR 2010 SC 1898; see also, Rangappa vs. Sri.Mohan
(2010) 11 SCC 441 ].
[Emphasis Supplied]
KABC030894522022 JUDGMENT CC N O.38349/2022
-: 27:-
33. On following the above principles of law laid down
by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision, that the
accused has rebutted the presumption of legally recoverable
debt for the above said reasons. In view of the same the
presumption under section 139 does not again come to the
complainant’s rescue. Thereby all the evidence has to be
considered without there being any burden of proof. The
Judgment relied by the complainant in case of Dashrath
Rupsingh Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2014)
9 SCC 129 does not come to aid. Resultantly, the accused has
successfully rebutted the presumption drawn against him. As
a result the Complainant has no benefit of presumption raised
in his favour earlier.
CONCLUSION.
34. On conjoint reading of all above materials, it is
inferred that the accused had no liability for payment of
damages of Rs.42,00,000/- towards the complainant. It is
apparent on the face of the record that the cheque issued for
KABC030894522022 JUDGMENT CC N O.38349/2022
-: 28:-
the purpose of security has been misused by the complainant.
There is no basis for the claim of penalty up to Rs.42,00,000/-
by the complainant. The security has not matured into
liability. Hence, in view of the same, the complainant has
failed to prove the aspect of legally recoverable debt.
35. In view of the above discussion and reasoning, the
accused has successfully rebutted the presumption drawn
against him. The complainant failed to prove his case beyond
reasonable doubt. This Court is of the view that, cheque
bearing No.032452 dtd: 04/01/2022 in favour of complainant
for sum of Rs.42,00,000/- was not issued for discharge of
legally recoverable liability. As a result the above point is
answered accordingly.
36. On Point No.2 : In view of the above discussions and
findings, the accused is not found guilty for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. In view of the same
the accused is entitled to be acquitted for the above said
accusation by dismissal of the complainant. It is nonetheless
KABC030894522022 JUDGMENT CC N O.38349/2022
-: 29:-
pertinent to observe that the complainant is liable for paying
compensation to accused for false accusation and prosecution
against the accused by misusing the cheque and his dominant
position, by appropriate proceedings as per section 250 (1) and
(8) of Cr.P.C. Thereby, proceed to pass the following:
:: ORDER ::
• In exercise of Sec. 255 (1) of Cr.P.C., the accused is hereby acquitted of the Offence punishable U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act. • The bail bond and surety bond of the accused shall continue for next 6 months as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.
(Directly dictated to the Stenographer on computer, same was corrected by me and then
pronounced in the Open Court, on this the 18th day of June, 2025.)(VEERESH KUMAR C.K.)
XXXVIII ADDL.C.J.M.,
BENGALURU
KABC030894522022 JUDGMENT CC N O.38349/2022
-: 30:-
ANNEXURE
1. List of Witnesses examined for Complainant:
PW.1: Sri.Santhosh.G.
2. List of Witnesses examined for Defence:
DW.1: Sri.Paramanna.M
3. List of Documents marked for Complainant:
Ex.P.1,2 : Company registration letter and
Board Resolution
Ex.P.3 to 6 : Four Indent letter (59 pages)
Ex.P.7 to 9 : Three work orders
Ex.P.10,11 : Two Indent termination letters
Ex.P.12 : Termination acceptance letter.
Ex.P.13 : Cheque
Ex.P.14 : Bank endorsement.
Ex.P.15 : Copy of Legal Notice.
Ex.P.16 : Two postal receipts.
Ex.P.17,18 : Two postal acknowledgments
Ex.P.19 : GST registration certificate.
Ex.P.20 : Copy of Virtual office agreement.
Ex.P.21 : Copy of service agreement.
Ex.P.22 : Copy of renewal agreement.
Ex.P.23 : Copy of E-mail printout.
Ex.P.24 : Copy of work order.
Ex.P.25 : Copy of work order.
Ex.P.26 : Copy of certificate of incorporation.
Ex.P.27 : Copy of IT registration notice of South Africa.
Ex.P.28 : Copy of Office agreement.
Ex.P.29 : Work order.
Ex.P.30 : Work order.
Ex.P.31 : Office agreement.
Ex.P.32 : Copy of office agreement
Ex.P.33 : Section 65-B certificate.
KABC030894522022 JUDGMENT CC N O.38349/2022
-: 31:-
4. List of Documents marked for Accused:
Ex.D.1 : Copy of FIR.
(VEERESH KUMAR C.K.)
XXXVIII ADDL.C.J.M.,
BENGALURU