Bangalore District Court
Medilines vs Om Shiva Pharma Industries on 13 August, 2025
KABC020065842024
IN THE COURT OF XXIV ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE, & A.C.J.M. AT BENGALURU (SCCH-26)
DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF AUGUST 2025
PRESENT : SRI. APPASAB NAIK,
B.A.L.L.B.(Spl)
XXIV ADDL. SCJ & ACJM
BENGALURU.
1. Sl. No. of the Case CC. No.1645 of 2024
2. The date of 24.01.2024.
commencement of
evidence
3. The date of closing 28.02.2025
evidence
4. Name of the M/s. Medilines,
Complainant Proprietor,
Dinesh Kumar Jain,
S/o Late Kajodimal Jain,
Aged about 60 years,
No.13/1C, II K.V. Temple Street,
Sourashtrapet,
Bengaluru-560 053.
(By Sri. K.R. Subramanya Rao-
Advocate)
5. Name of the 1. M/s Om Shiva Pharma Industries,
Accused Partnership Firm,
Represented by its Partners,
Plot No.11, Phase 4,
IDA Cherlapalli,
Hyderabad-500051.
2
SCCH-26 C.C.No.1645/2024
2. N. Ravinder Goud,
Managing Partner,
M/s Om Shiva Pharma Industries,
Plot No.11, Phase 4,
IDA Cherlapalli,
Hyderabad-500051.
(By Sri. Lokesh B.-Advocate)
6. The offence U/s.138 of the NI Act
complained of
7. Opinion of the Accused found guilty
judge
JUDGMENT
The complainant has filed this complaint Under Section
200 of Cr.P.C against the accused alleging that they have
committed an offence punishable Under Sec.138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. (In short N.I.Act).
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are as
under:-
It is the case of the complainant that, complainant is
the proprietorship concern registered under the Provisions of
GST and carrying on the wholesale business of
Medicines/Surgicals. Accused No.1 is the partnership firm
registered under the provisions of GST and carrying on the
business of manufacture and sale of surgical sprit I.P.
3
SCCH-26 C.C.No.1645/2024Accused No.2 is the Managing Partner of accused No.1 firm
and he is responsible for day to day affairs and business.
Accused No.2 has entered into an agreement with the
complainant on 20.10.2022 for Trade and Business by
agreeing the terms and conditions of agreement. As such he
has appointed the complainant as Super Distributor for
Karnataka to supply surgical sprit to the market. As per
clause No.4 of the agreement, the complainant has to pay
the Tax Invoice amount in advance for the goods supplied by
the accused. Accordingly, the complainant has paid advance
with respect to amount as per tax invoice bills and after
received the amount the accused have supplied the surgical
sprit to the complainant from time to time.
3. Further stated that, as per the terms of agreement,
both the parties shall liable to pay interest @ 36% per
annum in case of default from both sides. The complainant
has placed the order for supply of surgical sprit by making
advance payment and also maintained computerized running
ledger account to note the advance payment and goods
received as per the tax invoice bills from the accused. The
4
SCCH-26 C.C.No.1645/2024
each and every transaction is reflected in complainant’s bank
statement. Further as on 01.03.2023, the accused were
liable to pay outstanding balance amount of
Rs.17,97,034=60ps to the complainant. On 01.03.2023, the
accused No.2 had received the account statement and
admitted the correctness by subscribing the signature.
Thereafter, the complainant has paid Rs.15,00,000/- on
10.03.2023 and Rs.5,00,000/- on 25.03.2023 to the accused
as advance. As on 01.04.2023, the outstanding balance
amount is Rs.37,97,034=60 Ps and as on 30.09.2023, the
accused are liable to pay sum of Rs.48,74,853=60ps, which
includes interest @ 36% per annum as per the terms of
agreement.
4. Further stated that, in-spite of repeated request and
demands made by the complainant to supply the surgical
sprit items, the accused have expressed their inability to
supply the goods and agreed to refund the accumulated
advance amount with interest. The accused have also
confirmed the account statement of the complainant as
correct through e-mail letter dated:23.03.2023. Towards
5
SCCH-26 C.C.No.1645/2024
discharge of above said liability, the accused No.2 has issued
three cheques i.e., i) Cheque bearing No.814343,
dated:17.07.2023, for Rs.10,00,000/-, ii) Cheque bearing
No.814344, dated:17.07.2023, for Rs.27,97,034/- and iii)
Cheque bearing No.814345, dated:17.07.2023 for
Rs.10,77,819/-, in total for Rs.48,74,853/- and all the
cheques were drawn on YES Bank Ltd., Secunderabad
Branch.
5. Further stated that,as per the instructions of the
accused, the complainant has presented the above said
Cheques for realization on 13.10.2023 through its banker
i.e., ICICI Bank Ltd., Chickpet Branch, Bengaluru, but the
said cheques got dishonoured on 13.10.2023 and returned
unpaid for the reason “Funds insufficient”. Therefore, the
complainant has issued legal notice on 10.11.2023 calling
upon the accused to pay the amount payable under the
cheques within 15 days from the date of receipt to notice.
The said notice was returned with Shara “Unclaimed” on
20.11.2023. In spite of it, the accused have neither replied
the notice nor paid the amount covered under the cheques.
6
SCCH-26 C.C.No.1645/2024 Hence, this complaint.
6. After filing of this complaint, the cognizance of the
offence has been taken and the complaint has been
registered as P.C.R. Thereafter, the sworn statement of the
Proprietor of Complainant has been recorded and also got
marked 21 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.21. Thereafter, the
case has been registered in Crl.Reg.No.III and summons has
been issued to the accused. In pursuance of the summons
the accused No.2 has appeared before this court through his
counsel and obtained bail. The plea has been recorded, read
over and explained to the accused No.2. the accused No.2 is
represented the accused No.1 company. He has pleaded not
guilty and claims to be tried. Hence, the case has been
posted for complainant evidence. The complainant has
adopted sworn statement and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.21 as his
evidence. Thereafter, statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C.
has been recorded. He has denied the incriminating
circumstances appearing in the evidence of complainant
against him. He has chosen to lead defence evidence.
Accordingly, he has examined himself as DW-1 and no any
7
SCCH-26 C.C.No.1645/2024
documents got marked on his behalf.
7. Heard the arguments from both sides. Perused the
entire records.
8. The following points arise for my consideration:-
POINTS
1. Whether the complainant proves
beyond all reasonable doubt that the
accused had issued a Cheque bearing
No.814343, dated:17.07.2023 for
Rs.10,00,000/-,Cheque bearing
No.814344,dated:17.07.2023 for
Rs.27,97,034/- and Cheque bearing
No.814345, dated:17.07.2023 for
Rs.10,77,819/-, drawn on YES Bank
Ltd., Secunderabad Branch, for
discharge of legally recoverable debt
and when the said cheques were
presented to the bank for encashment,
they were returned unpaid with
remarks that funds insufficient and
inspite of service of demand notice and
accused has not paid the amount and
thereby committed offences punishable
under section 138 of NI Act?
2. What order?
9. My answers to the above points are as follows :-
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative
Point No.2 : As per final order for the
following :-
8
SCCH-26 C.C.No.1645/2024
REASONS
10. POINT NO.1:- It is the case of the complainant that,
the accused being the manufacturer and sales of surgical
sprit I.P. have supplied the said goods to the complainant.
On 20.10.2022, the agreement has been entered between the
parties. As per terms of agreement, the complainant has
paid the respective tax invoice bills amount in advance and
after received the amount the accused have supplied the
surgical sprit to the complainant. Both the parties have
agreed to pay interest at the rate of 36% per annum in case
of default to execute their obligation. As on 01.03.2023, the
accused are liable to pay outstanding balance amount of
Rs.17,97,034=60 ps. Further, the complainant has paid
Rs.15,00,000/- to the accused on 10.03.2023 and
Rs.5,00,000/- on 25.03.2023. In total the accused are liable
to pay Rs.37,97,034=60 Ps as on 01.04.2023 and as on
30.09.2023 the accused are liable to pay Rs.48,74,853=60
ps., which includes interest at the rate of 36% per annum as
per agreement. After repeated request and demands made
by the complainant, the accused have expressed their
9
SCCH-26 C.C.No.1645/2024
inability to supply items and agreed to pay the advance
amount together with interest to the complainant. At that
time the accused No.2 has issued 3 cheques i.e., i) cheque
bearing No.814343, dated:17.07.2023 for Rs.10,00,000/-, ii)
Cheque bearing No.814344, dated:17.07.2023 for
Rs.27,97,034/- and iii) Cheque bearing No.814345,
dated:17.07.2023 for Rs.10,77,819/-, drawn on YES Bank
Ltd., Secunderabad Branch, towards repayment of advance
amount of Rs.48,74,853=60 ps in the name of the
complainant firm. After presentation of the above said
cheques, they were dishonored and returned for the reason
“funds insufficient”. Upon service of demand notice as per
section 138 NI Act the accused has failed to pay the cheque
amounts, therefore, accused committed the offences under
section 138 of NI Act.
11. In order to substantiate the same, the proprietor of the
complainant concern got examined as PW.1 and marked 21
documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.21. Ex.P.1 is the notarized
copy of registration certificate along with annexure A and B,
Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.4 are the cheques, Ex.P.5 to Ex.P.7 are the
10
SCCH-26 C.C.No.1645/2024
Bank endorsements memo, Ex.P.8 is the office copy of legal
notice, Ex.P.9 and Ex.P.10 are the postal receipts, Ex.P.11
and Ex.P.12 are the returned notice covers, Ex.P.11(a) and
Ex.P.12(a) are the notices found in the cover, Ex.P.13 is the
Agreement, Ex.P.14 to Ex.P.18 are the invoice receipts,
Ex.P.19 is the Bank Statement, Ex.P.20 is the ledger account
extract (1 to 3 pages), Ex.P.21 is the E-mail copy along with
certificate U/Sec.65B of Evidence Act.
12. In order to rebut the presumption, the learned counsel
for the accused has cross-examined PW-1. I have perused
the entire cross-examination of PW-1. The accused has
taken up a defence that the complainant has obtained the
signature of the accused on blank bond paper. Further he
has taken-up a defence that he did not issue the cheques for
repayment of any due amount. He has also taken-up a
defence that accused has supplied the materials to the
complainant as per purchase order. He has also taken-up a
defence that the complainant misused his cheques given as
a security.
13. It is relevant to note that at the time of recording
11
SCCH-26 C.C.No.1645/2024
the statement of accused u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. He has denied
the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in
the evidence of complainant. He has chosen to lead defence
evidence. Accordingly, He has examined himself as DW-,
but not produced and marked any documents on his behalf.
14. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that
there is no dispute between the accused and complainant in
respect of transactions. The accused is admitted in the
EX.P-13 agreement in his cross examination. As per Ex.P-
13, the accused is liable to interest of the due amount.
Further argued that the accused has issued cheques for
repayment of amount, but the said cheques were dishonored
and legal notice issued, even then he has not paid any
amount or no any reply notice. The complaint has produced
the invoice bills and ledger accounts and also agreement as
Ex.P-1 to 21. The accused has himself is admitted in his
cross examination for transactions, cheques, signature is
admitted. Further argued that once the issuance of cheque
and documents were admitted by the accused, it drawn
presumption U/s 139 of NI Act. The accused has issued the
12
SCCH-26 C.C.No.1645/2024
cheque for repayment of amounts and complainant has
proved the case on oral and documentary evidence. Hence
he prayed for convict the accused.
15. The learned counsel for accused argued that, The
amount mentioned in the Ex.P-20 and amount mentioned
the Ex.P-2 to 4 cheques are not tally with each other and
contradictory to each other, the complaint is not
maintainable. It is further argued that the complainant has
not furnished the IT returns documents. The accused has
issued the cheques for security purposes, the said cheques
are misused by the compliant and filed the false case against
accused. Hence prayed for acquit the accused.
16. from the evidence of both the parties, one thing it
makes clear that the transactions between the complainant
and accused are not dispute. Further the agreement of
trade and business as Ex.P-13 is not in dispute. The
signature of the accused found in Ex-P2 to 4 -cheques is
also not in dispute. The only contention and the defence of
the accused is that he already supplied he materials to the
compliant as per purchase order and no any balance to the
13
SCCH-26 C.C.No.1645/2024
complainant. As per Ex-P 20 ledger produced by the
complainant shows that as on 30-09-2023 the accused was
due by Rs.48,74,853.60/- .Therefore, as on the date of
presentation of cheques as per Ex-P 5 to 7 , the accused was
due sum of Rs. 48,74,853.60/- as mentioned in the
cheques.
17. Before to appreciate the oral and documentary
evidences placed on record by the respective parties and also
to appreciate the arguments advanced, it is necessary to find
out whether the present complaint has been filed in
consonance with the provisions of section 138 of NI Act or
not?. Looking to the issuance of cheque at Ex.P.2 to 4,
banker’s memo at Ex.P.5 to7, demand notice at Ex.P.8 and
so also the postal records at Ex.P. 9 to 12 it can be clearly
seen that, the cheques in question has been presented to the
bank for encashment within the period of its validity and the
said demand notice has been issued to the accused within
30 days from the date of receipt of banker’s endorsement.
Further, the return notice covers produced at Ex.P.11 to 12
is not disputed by the defense side either during cross
14
SCCH-26 C.C.No.1645/2024
examination of PW.1 or in the examination in chief of DW.1.
The present complaint has been filed on 30-12-2023 within
30 days from the date of accrual of cause of action. Thus, by
virtue of the documents at Ex.P.2 to 12, it appears that, the
present complaint has been filed only after fulfilment of the
requirements of the section 138 of NI Act.
18. As per sections 118(a) & 139 of NI Act are two
important provisions and they provides for raising
mandatory presumptions in favour of the complainant until
the contrary is proved by the accused. Even in the catena of
decisions i.e., in the case of Rangappa Vs. Mohan reported
in 2010(11) SCC 441, in the case of Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh
Kumar reported in 2019(4) SCC 197, in the case of APS
Forex Services (P) Ltd., Vs.Shakthi International Fashion
Linkers reported in 2020(12) SCC 724, in the case of
Rajeshbai Muljibhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat, reported
in 2020(3) SCC 794, in the case of Triyambak S. Hegde
Vs. Sripad reported in Live Law 2021 SC 492 and it is laid
down that, ” Once the issuance of cheque and the signature
thereon is admitted by the accused, the court is required to
15
SCCH-26 C.C.No.1645/2024
raise presumption in favour of the complainant stating that,
the accused has issued the cheque for some consideration
towards discharge of his legal debt or liability of the
complainant and that the complainant is the due holder of
the said cheque. The burden shifts on the accused to rebut
the statutory presumptions under sections 118(a) & 139 of
NI Act.” Now, it is well established law that, the presumption
mandated by section 139 of NI Act, thus indeed includes the
existence of legally enforceable debt or liability and it is open
for the accused to raise a probable defense wherein the
existence of legally enforceable debt or liability can be
contested and he shall prove before the court on
preponderance of probabilities, only thereupon a statutory
presumption raised in favour of the complainant stands
rebutted.
19. The Learned Counsel for complianant has fully
cross examined the DW.1, similarly the Learned Counsel for
accsued has also cross fully examined the PW.1 at length.
20. After careful scrutinizing the oral evidences of PW.1
and DW.1 and also the averments of complaint, there is no
16
SCCH-26 C.C.No.1645/2024
dispute the transaction between the complainant and
accused as Per Ex.P-3 agreemnt of trade and business. It is
the defense of the accused that, the accused has supplied
the materails to the complainant as per the order of the
complainant. The accused has taken further defence that
the complainant has misused the security cheque. The
relevant portion of the cross examination of the DW.1, is
reproduced for the benefit of discussion as under;
ನನ್ನ ಜೊತೆಗೆ ಪಿಯಾ೯ದಿ ಕಂಪನಿಯು ವ್ವವಹಾರ
ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತದೆ ಅಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
ನಿಪಿ-13 ರಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಸಹಿ ಮತ್ತು ಸೀಲು ನನಗೆ
ಸಂಬಂದಿಸಿರುತ್ತವೆ ಅಂದರೆ ಸರಿಇ. ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಯು ಯಾವುದೇ
ದಾಖಲೆಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಬರೆದಿರುವ ಸಂಗಿಗಳನ್ನು ಓದದೇ ಸಹಿ ಹಾಕುವುದಿಲ್ಲ
ಅಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ನಿಪಿ-13 ರ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ನಾನು ಮುಂಗಡವಾಗಿ ಹಣ
ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಂಡು ನನ್ನ ಪ್ರಾ ಡಕ್ಟಗಳನ್ನು ಸಪ್ಲೈ ಮಾಡುತ್ತೇನೆ ಅಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
ನಾನು ನನ್ನ ಕಂಪನಿಗೆ ಸಂಬಂದಿಸಿದ ಲೆಡ್ಜರ ಅಕೌಂಟ ದಾಖಲೆಯನ್ನು
ನಿವ(ಹಣೆ ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ, ನಿಪಿ-14 ರಿಂದ 18 ರಶೀದಿಗಳು
ಪಿಯಾ೯ದಿದಾರರಿಗೆ ಮಟರಿಐಲ್ ಮಾರಾಟ ಮಾಡಿದ
ರಶೀದಿಗಳಾಗಿರುತ್ತವೆ ಅಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ನಿಪಿ.14 ರಿಂದ 18 ರಲ್ಲಿ
ತೋರಿಸಿರುವ ವ್ಯವಹಾರಗಳು ಲೆಡ್ಜರ ಅಕೌಂಟ ದಾಖಲೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ನಮೂದು
17
SCCH-26 C.C.No.1645/2024
ಇರುತ್ತದೆ ಅಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಅದೇ ರೀತಿ ಪಿಯಾ೯ದಿದಾರರು ಪಾವತಿ ಮಾಡಿದ
ಮುಂಗಡ ಹಣವೂ ಲೆಡ್ಜರ ಅಕೌಂಟ ನಲ್ಲಿ ತೋರಿಸುತ್ತದೆ ಅಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
ನಾನು ಮತ್ತು ಪಿಯಾ೯ದಿದಾರರು ನಿಪಿ-13ರಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಷರತ್ತು ಗಳಿಗೆ
ಬಂಧನಕಾರಕ ಆಗಿರುತ್ತೇವೆ ಅಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ನಿಪಿ-13 ದಾಖಲೆಯನ್ನು
ನಾನು ಸಹಿ ಮಾಡುವ ಪೂವ೯ದಲ್ಲಿ ಓದಿಕೊಂಡಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ ಅಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
ನಿಪಿ-13ರ ಖಂಡಿಕೆ 4 ಪ್ರಕಾರ ಒಂದು ವೇಳೆ
ಪಿಯಾ೯ದಿದಾರರು ಮುಂಗಡ ಹಣ ಕೊಟ್ಟ ನಂತರ ಅವರು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುವ
ಆಡ೯ರ ಮಟೆರೀಯಲ್ಸಗಳನ್ನು ಸಪ್ಲೈ ಮಾ ಡದೇ ಇದ್ದಲ್ಲಿ ಸದರಿ ಮುಂಗಡ
ಹಣದ ಜೊತೆಗೆ 36% p.a ಬಡ್ಡಿ ಹಣವನ್ನು ಕೊಡಿಸಿ ಕೊಡಬೇಕು
ಅಂತ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ ಅಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
ನನಗೆ ಆ ಮಾತುಕತೆ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಚೆಕ್ಕಿನ ಮೊತ್ತ
ಬಾದ್ಯತೆ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿತ್ತು ಅಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
21. In this case, the complainant has taken contention
that the as per Ex.p-13 agreement between the complianant
and accused inrespect of businssess transctions. Consider
the cross examantion of Dw-1, the accused is admitted the
EX.P13 and clauses of the agreement in Ex.P-13.
22. Carefully perusal of the cross of Pw-1, the learned
counsel for accused suggested to pw-1 that accused is
admitted in reply notice to pay the amount of Rs.17 lakhs in
18
SCCH-26 C.C.No.1645/2024
his reply notice and Pw-1 is admitted the same. Ex.P-21
Email send by the complainant on 28-02-2023.but As per
Ex.P-20, the complainant has given the amount of
Rs.15,00,000 and Rs.5,00,000/ on 10-03-2023 and 25-03-
2023 respectively to the accused. The accused has not
denied the said transactions. Thereafter the complainant
has calculated the interest of 36% on the amount from 02-
04-2023 to 30-09-2023 as per Ex.P-13 agreement. The
accused has not produced documents to supply the
materials to the complainant. Hence the accused has failed
to prove the supply the materials to the complainant , hence
defence is not sustainable and not helpful to the accused.
23. I carefully examined the oral and documentary
evidence, one thing it makes clear that the complainant and
accused have transactions are not dispute. The signature of
the accused found in Ex-P2 to 4 cheques are also not in
dispute. The only contention and the defence of the accused
is that he already supply the materials to the complainant
company and no any due amount. It is relevant to note that
the accused has taken-up a defence that he issued cheques
19
SCCH-26 C.C.No.1645/2024
as per Ex-P 2 to 4 in favour of Complainant as a security. It
is relevant to note that even if a cheques are issued as a
security for repayment of any debt or liability, it attracts
section 138 of NI Act. Hence the said defence of the accused
holds no water.
24. Accused clearly admitted that Ex.P.2(a) to 4 (a) is
his signature. Regarding defence raised by the accused that
He was issued the duly signed blank cheque, it is necessary
to discuss on Section 20 of NI Act. It reads as under;
Section 20:- ” Inchoate stamped
instruments – Where one person signs
and delivers to another person a
paper stamped in accordance with
law relating to negotiable
instruments then in force in (India),
and either wholly blank or having
written thereon an incomplete
egotiable instrument, he thereby
gives prima facie authority to the
holder there of to make or complete,
as the case may be upon it a
negotiable instrument, for any
amount specified therein and not
exceeding the amount covered by the
stamp. The person so signing shall be
liable upon such instrument, in the
capacity in which he signed the
20
SCCH-26 C.C.No.1645/2024
same, to any holder in due course for
such amount; provided that no
person other than a holder in due
course shall recover from the person
delivering the instrument anything
in excess of the amount intended by
him to paid there under”.
25. The accused contended that they have issued
blank cheque. What is the effect of issuing a blank
cheque is to be considered at this stage. Where the
cheque is signed leaving blank all other particulars and
handed over to the payee authorizing her to fill-up the
blanks as agreed upon, it is valid in law. Therefore, when
such a cheque is dishonoured, section 138 applies. ILR
2001 KAR 4127 in the case of S.R.Muralidhar Vs
G.Y.Ashok. In this regard section 20 of the Act is very
clear. Here the stand of the accused is not maintainable.
26. The accused contended that the cheques are
issued for the purpose of security. The cheque issued as a
security is also comes under the purview of section 138 of
N.I Act. This aspect was observed in the decision which is
21
SCCH-26 C.C.No.1645/2024
reported in AIR 2002 SC 3014 (ICDS Ltd., Vs Beena Shabeer
and another). Therefore, the presumption shall be drawn in
favour of the complainant as the cheque was issued for
discharge of debt.
27. Once the presumption U/S 139 and 118 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act is raised, it is for the accused to
rebut the said presumption by adducing cogent evidence in
support of his defence. The complainant has misused the
said security cheque and filed this false complaint. It is
relevant to mention here that at the first instance, the
accused has not issued any reply notice. Further Ex.P.11 to
12 which are the return notice covres , it shows that the the
notice retuhered as unclaimed, therfore legal notice duly
served to the accused and same is admitted by the Dw-1 in
his cross examination. The accused has failed to take any
admission during the entire cross-examination of PW1.
Further though the accused has stated that materails
supplied to the complainant as per as per agreement, but
accused has deposed in cross examination that the obtained
the siagnture of accused on blank bond paper and denied
22
SCCH-26 C.C.No.1645/2024
the Ex.P-13, accused is admitted in his cross examantion
inrespect of Ex.P-13 agreement. Both the said versions of the
accused are quite contrary to each other. Further the
accused is not a layman to issue blank signed cheques as
claimed and if at all there were any dues, certainly the
accused could have issued the cheques duly filled the agreed
date of its presentation. The accused did not take any action
against the complainant for misusing the security cheque.
Further during the course of cross-examination the learned
counsel for the accused has made a suggestion to Pw-1 that
not produced the entire ITR returns and did not disclose
the entire transactions in ITR or he did not produce the ITR
pertaining to him for the relevant period are not grounds to
believe the defence of the accused. Further the accused
though suggested to PW1 that at the time of issuing the
security cheque in question they were blank, it has been
categorically denied by the PW1. Totally upon going through
the materials on record, there is nothing on record which
rebut the presumptions available in favour of the
complainant and also to disbelieve the case of the
23
SCCH-26 C.C.No.1645/2024
complainant. As such, considering the entire materials on
record, in my opinion, the accused has failed to rebut the
presumptions available in favour of the complainant by
adducing cogent oral and documentary evidence and the
complainant has proved his case beyond all reasonable
doubts that the accused has committed offence punishable
U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, I am of the
opinion that the accused has committed the offence
punishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
28. It is relevant to mention here that the accused
having issued cheque at Ex.P 2 to 4 in favour of the
complainant has failed to pay the cheque amounts and
hence, the complainant is to be suitably compensated for the
delay caused by the accused in its repayment. Further the
punishment prescribed for the offence U/s.138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act is imprisonment for a period which may
extend to two years or with fine which may extend to twice
the amount of the cheque or with both. Considering the facts
and circumstances of this case, nature, year of the
transaction, nature of the instrument involved, cost of
24
SCCH-26 C.C.No.1645/2024
litigation and the rate of interest proposed by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in 2012 (1) SCC 260 (R.Vijayan Vs Baby), I
am of the opinion that it is just and desirable to impose fine
of Rs. 48,84,853 /- and out of the said amount, it seems to
be proper to award a sum of Rs. 48,74,853 /- as
compensation to the complainant as provided U/s.357(1) of
Cr.P.C and the remaining sum of Rs.10,000/- shall go to the
State towards expenses. With these observations,I answered
the point No.1 in the Affirmative.
29. Point No.2: For the aforesaid reason, I proceed to
pass the following:-
-: O R D E R :-
The accused have been convicted
U/Sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C. for the offences
punishable U/sec.138 of Negotiable
Instrument Act.
The accused No.1 is company.
The accused No.2 is hereby convicted
is hereby sentenced to pay fine of Rs.
48,84,853/- (Rupees forty eight lakhs
Eighty four thousand eight hundred
fifty three only). In default, the accused
25
SCCH-26 C.C.No.1645/2024shall undergo simple imprisonment for
period of six months.
Acting U/s 357(3) of Cr.P.C. out of the
total fine amount payable by the accused,
a sum of Rs. 48,74,853 /- shall be paid
to the complainant as compensation. The
remaining fine amount of Rs.10,000/-
shall go to state.
It is further made clear that if the
accused opt to undergo imprisonment, it
does not absolve him from liability of
paying compensation to the complainant.
Office is hereby directed to supply free
certified copy of this judgment to the
accused forthwith.
The bail bond of the accused shall
stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the stenographer, directly over computer, typed by her,
corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Court on this day
13th August, 2025)(Appasab Naik)
XXIV ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE
& A.C.J.M. BENGALURU.
26
SCCH-26 C.C.No.1645/2024
::A N N E X U R E::
I. WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE
COMPLAINANT:
P.W.1 : Sri. Dinesh Kumar Jain.
II. DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE
COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P.1 : Notarized copy of registration
certificate along with Annexure A and
B.
Ex.P.2 to 4 : 3 Cheques
Ex.P.2(a) to : Signatures of the accused.
4 (a)
Ex.P.5 to 7 : Bank Endorsements Memo.
Ex.P.8 : Office copy of Legal notice
Ex.P.9 & 10 : Postal receipts
Ex.P.11 & 12 : Returned notice covers
Ex.P.11(a) & : Notice found in the covers.
12(a)
Ex.P.13 : Agreement.
Ex.P.14 to : Invoice receipts
18
Ex.P.19 : Bank statement.
Ex.P.20 : Ledger account extract (1 to 3 pages)
Ex.P.21 : E-mail copy along with certificate
U/Sec.65-B of the Evidence Act.
27
SCCH-26 C.C.No.1645/2024
III. WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE
ACCUSED:
D.W.1 : Sri. Ravinder.
IV. DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE
ACCUSED:
- Nil -
Digitally signed by
APPASAB APPASAB RAMAPPA
RAMAPPA NAIK
Date: 2025.08.14
NAIK 13:09:35 +0530
(Appasab Naik)
XXIV ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE
& A.C.J.M. BENGALURU.