[ad_1]
Bangalore District Court
Nagappa. T vs Bharath Gowda on 9 July, 2025
KABC030212292024 1 CC.NO.12945/2024
IN THE COURT OF XII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU.
Dated this the 09th day of July, 2025.
:Present:
Smt. Smt. Dhanalakshmi.R.,
XII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bangalore.
CC.No.12945/2024
1. Name of the Mr.Nagappa.T.,
Complainant: Aged about 55 years,
S/o. Late. Thimmaiah,
R/at: No.17, 10th Cross,
5th Main, 3rd Phase,
Nandini Layout,
Bengaluru-96.
(By Sri.R.G.N & anr., Advocate)
Vs.
2.Name of the Mr.Bharath Gowda,
Accused Aged about 31 years,
S/o. Venkatesh.G.,
R/at: No.3, Veerasagara,
Attur Post, Yelahanaka Hobli,
Bengaluru-64.
(By Sri.V.V & anrs., Advocate)
1. The date of : 15.11.2023
commission of the
offence
2. The offence : Under Section 138 of the
complained of or Negotiable Instrument
proves Act.
KABC030212292024 2 CC.NO.12945/2024
3. Date of : 27.11.2024
commencement of
recording of evidence
4. Date of closing of : 24.01.2025
evidence
5. Opinion of judge Found not guilty
6. Date of : 08.07.2025
pronouncement of
judgment
JUDGMENT
1. This case is registered U/sec. 200 of
Cr.P.C based on the written complaint given by
the complainant against the accused for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter
called as NI Act for the purpose of brevity).
02. The case of the complainant in brief is
as follows:-
It is the case of the complainant that the
accused is his son-in-law and he was carrying
the business in the name and style as M/s.
Preksha Enterprises and he was manufacturing
KABC030212292024 3 CC.NO.12945/2024P.S.Doors. For the improvement of said business
the accused has borrowed the sum of
Rs.9,00,000/- from the complainant on
13.06.2022. The complainant has transferred the
said amount by way of Bank transfer. As agreed
by the accused, he has failed to pay the interest
at rate of 24% p.a. and also failed to pay the
principle amount. Further the accused has
neglected his wife and divorce her. On
persuasion, the accused has paid only
Rs.3,00,000/- interest for clearance of the loan
and the accused issued cheque bearing
No.000040 dated: 15.11.2023 for sum of
Rs.3,75,000/- and another bearing No.000039
dt: 20.11.2023 for Rs.3,75,000/- both are drawn
on Bank of Baroda, Yelahanka New Town
Branch, Bengaluru. When the complainant
presented the said cheques for encashment
through his Banker at Bank of Baroda, APMC
KABC030212292024 4 CC.NO.12945/2024yard Branch, Bengaluru, the cheques were
dishonoured on 17.01.2024 with an endorsement
as “Funds Insufficient”. As such the complainant
has issued demand notice dt: 23.01.2024 to the
accused calling upon the accused to repay the
cheques amount within 15 days from the date of
receipt of the said notice. Inspite of receiving the
said notice, the accused has not repaid amount.
Hence, the present complaint.
3. On filing of the complaint, recorded the
sworn statement of the complainant and marked
9 documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9 and
cognizance of the offence is taken the
complainant has complied all the statutory
requirements under Sec.138 of N.I.Act.
Thereafter, the case is registered against the
accused and summons issued.
KABC030212292024 5 CC.NO.12945/2024
4. On service of summons, the accused
appeared through his counsel and he was
enlarged on bail. The substance of accusation was
read over and explained to the accused in the
language known to him. As per the directions of
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in ” Indian Bank
Association V/s Union of India & Others reported
in (2014) 5 SCC 590, this court has treated the
sworn statement of the complainant as his
evidence and in compliance with the direction of
Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid citation the
statement of the accused was also recorded under
section 313 of Cr.P.C. On application filed by the
counsel for the accused under section 145 Act,
permission was accorded to cross examine PW1.
Accordingly, PW.1 was cross examined by learned
counsel for the accused and confronted four
documents as Ex.D1 to Ex.D4. The Accused
examined himself as DW1 and got marked
KABC030212292024 6 CC.NO.12945/2024
documents as Ex.D5 to Ex.D10. DW1 was cross
examined by the learned counsel for the
complainant.
5. Heard the learned counsel for both sides.
Perused the records. The counsel for accused filed
memo with citation and also filed written
arguments.
6. The following points arise for
consideration:
Point No.1: Whether the
complainant proves that the
accused has issued the cheques
for the legally recoverable debt as
alleged by him?
Point No.2: Whether the accused
has committed the offence
punishable under section 138
Act?
Point No.3: What Order or
Sentence?
KABC030212292024 7 CC.NO.12945/2024
7. The above points are answered as
under:
Point No.1: In the Negative,
Point No.2: In the Negative,
Point No.3: As per the final
order for the following:
REASONS
8. POINT No.1 and 2: It is the case of the
complainant that, towards the discharge of the
hand loan, the accused has issued the disputed
cheques and when the same was presented, it got
dishonored for the reason “Funds Insufficient”.
Though the said fact was brought to the notice of
accused by issuing demand notice he has failed to
repay the cheques amount.
9. In order to prove his case, the
complainant got examined himself as PW1 and got
marked the Cheques as Ex.P1 & Ex.P2. There is
KABC030212292024 8 CC.NO.12945/2024
no dispute that the cheques are belonging to the
Account maintained by the Accused. The Accused
has also not disputed his signature found in the
Cheques. Bank challan & counter files are
marked at Ex.P3, the cheques are dishonoured for
the reasons Funds insufficient. The said
endorsements of the Bank is marked as Ex.P4.
The accused has also not disputed with regard to
the service of demand notice on him. The copy of
the demand notice is marked as Ex.P5. The
complainant has produced the postal receipt at
Ex.P6, U/sec.65(B) of Indian Evidence Act along
with postal track report is marked at Ex.P7, Letter
Dt: 15.04.2023 at Ex.P8, Bank Statement of
Account is marked at Ex.P9.Admittedly the
accused has not given any reply to the demand
notice nor he has paid the amount covered under
Ex.P1 & Ex.P2 cheques.
KABC030212292024 9 CC.NO.12945/2024
10. In order to bring home a liability under
Section 138 of NI Act, 1881, following elements
must spring out from the averments in the
complaint and the evidence adduced by the
complainant, viz.
1. A person must have drawn a cheque on
an account maintained by him in a bank
for payment of a certain sum of money to
another person from out of that account
for the discharge of any legally enforceable
debt or liability;
2. The cheque has been presented to the
bank within a period of three months from
the date mentioned on the cheque or
within the period of its validity, whichever
is earlier;
3. The cheque is returned by the bank
unpaid either because the amount of
money standing to the credit of the
account is insufficient to honour the
cheque or that it exceeds the amount
arranged to be paid from that account by
an agreement made with the bank;
4. The payee or the holder in due course of
the cheque makes a demand for the
payment of the said amount of money by
giving a notice in writing to the drawer of
the cheque within 40 days of the receipt of
information by him from the bank
KABC030212292024 10 CC.NO.12945/2024
regarding the return of the cheque as
unpaid;
5. The drawer of such cheque fails to make
the payment to the payee or the holder in
due course of the cheque within 15 days of
the receipt of the notice.
11. Let us discuss the provisions of Section
118(a) and Section 139 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, which read as follows:
Section 118. Presumptions as to negotiable
instruments – Until the contrary is proved,
the following presumptions shall be made:(a)
of consideration – that every negotiable
instrument was consideration, instrument,
indorsed, made and when it negotiated or
that has or drawn every been for such
accepted, transferred, was accepted,
indorsed, negotiated or transferred for
consideration.”
Section 139. Presumption in favour of holder
It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is
proved, that the holder of a cheque received
the cheque of the nature referred to in
section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in
part, of any debt or other liability.”
Presumptions both under Sections 118(a)
and 139 of the Act are rebuttable in nature.
KABC030212292024 11 CC.NO.12945/2024
12. In light of the arguments presented by
both sides, let us discuss whether the aforesaid
presumptions truly aid the Complainant in
proving the guilt of the Accused. According to
Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, the initial presumption is in
favour of the Complainant regarding the
consideration mentioned in Ex.P.1 cheque and the
fact that the cheque was issued in favor of the
Complainant to discharge a debt or other liability.
13. As per the scheme of Section 118 and
139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, once the
presumption is drawn in favor of the
Complainant, the burden shifts to the Accused to
present rebuttal evidence that undermines the
Complainant’s case, showing that the Accused
was not obliged to pay the amount and that a
false case was filed against him. According to this
KABC030212292024 12 CC.NO.12945/2024
scheme, once the Accused has rebutted the
presumption available under Sections 118 and
139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the onus
then shifts back to the Complainant to prove its
case in accordance with Section 102 of the Indian
Evidence Act.
14. It is relevant to refer the ratio laid down
by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bharat Barrel &
Drum Mfg. Co. v. Amin Chand Payrelal, reported
in (1993) 3 SCC 35, wherein at page no.50-51,
para 12, it was held as under:
“Upon consideration of various judgments as
noted hereinabove, the position of law which
emerges is that once execution of the
promissory note is admitted, the
presumption under Section 118(a) would
arise that it is supported by consideration.
Such a presumption is rebuttable. The
defendant can prove the non-existence of
consideration by raising a probable defence.
If the defendant is proved to have discharged
the initial onus of proof showing that the
existence of consideration was improbable or
doubtful or the same was illegal, the onus
KABC030212292024 13 CC.NO.12945/2024would shift to the plaintiff who will be
obliged to prove it as a matter of fact and
upon its failure to prove would dis-entitle
him to the grant of relief on the basis of the
negotiable instrument. The burden upon the
defendant of proving the non-existence of
the consideration can be either direct or by
bringing on record the preponderance of
probabilities by reference to the
circumstances upon which he relies. In such
an event the plaintiff is entitled under law to
rely upon all the evidence led in the case
including that of the plaintiff as well. In
case, where the defendant fails to discharge
the showing the initial onus of non-
existence proofby of the consideration, the
plaintiff would invariably be held entitled to
the benefit of presumption arising under
Section 118(a) in his favour. The court may
not insist upon the defendant to disprove
the existence of consideration by leading
direct evidence as existence of negative
evidence is neither possible nor
contemplated and even if led is to be seen
with a doubt”.
15. It is relevant to refer to the ratio laid
down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in S. Narayana
Menon vs. State of Kerala, reported in (2006) 6
SCC 39, wherein the Apex Court has held that for
rebutting the presumptions available under
KABC030212292024 14 CC.NO.12945/2024
Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, the accused needs to raise a
probable defense. For this purpose, the accused
can rely upon the evidence adduced by the
Complainant. It is further held that the standard
of proof for the accused is preponderance of
probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt.
16. It is also relevant to refer to the ratio
laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kamal A.S
vs. Vidhyadaran M.J and another, reported in
(2007) 5 SCC 264, wherein the Hon’ble Apex
Court has held that the burden on the accused to
rebut the presumptions can be discharged by
preponderance of probabilities. It was further held
that the court can draw inference from the
material brought on record as well as
circumstances relied upon by the accused. The
Apex Court further discussed that when the
KABC030212292024 15 CC.NO.12945/2024
accused has discharged the initial burden, the
onus shifts to the Complainant, and if the
Complainant fails to prove his case beyond
reasonable doubt without the help of the
presumption, the Complainant is not entitled to
the relief sought under the complaint.
17. It is relevant to refer to the ratio laid
down by the Apex Court in Basalingappa vs.
Mudibasappa, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 418,
wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has discussed
Sections 3 and 4 of the Evidence Act in
connection with Sections 118(a) and 139 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act. It held that as soon
as the Complainant discharges the burden to
prove that the cheque was executed by the
accused, the rules of presumption under Sections
118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
help the Complainant to shift the burden to the
KABC030212292024 16 CC.NO.12945/2024
accused. It was further held that the
presumptions will live, exist, and survive, and
shall end only when the contrary is proved by the
accused, i.e., the cheque was not issued for
consideration and in discharge of any debt or
liability. It was further held that a presumption is
not in itself evidence but only makes a prima facie
case for the party for whose benefit it exists. It
was further held that the accused may adduce
direct evidence to prove that the cheque in
question was not supported by consideration and
that there was no debt or liability to be discharged
by him. It was further held that the courts need
not insist in every case that the accused should
disprove the non-existence of consideration and
debt by leading direct evidence because the
existence of negative evidence is neither possible
nor contemplated.
KABC030212292024 17 CC.NO.12945/2024
18. It is also relevant to refer to the ratio laid
down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Uttam Ram vs.
Devinder Singh Hudan and another, reported in
(2019) 10 SCC 287, wherein the Hon’ble Apex
Court has discussed the presumption under
Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act and the burden of rebuttal of
presumption under these sections. It was further
held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that to rebut the
statutory presumption, an accused is not
expected to prove his defense beyond reasonable
doubt as is expected of the Complainant in a
criminal case. It was further held that the accused
has to bring something probable on record to get
the burden of proof shifted to the Complainant. It
was further held that to disprove the
presumption, the accused should bring on record
such facts and circumstances, upon consideration
of which, the court may either believe that the
KABC030212292024 18 CC.NO.12945/2024
consideration and the debt did not exist, or their
non-existence was so probable that a prudent
man would, under the circumstances of the case,
act upon the plea that they did not exist. It was
further held that the accused, apart from
adducing direct evidence to prove that the
consideration did not exist or that he had not
incurred any debt or liability, may also rely upon
circumstantial evidence, and if the circumstances
so relied upon are compelling, the burden may
likewise shift again to the Complainant.
19. This court has carefully perused the
ratios laid down in the aforementioned cases by
the Hon’ble Apex Court and applied them to the
case at hand. According to the decisions of the
Apex Court, the burden on the Accused to prove
the non-existence of consideration can be
discharged either directly or by bringing on record
KABC030212292024 19 CC.NO.12945/2024
the preponderance of probabilities, referencing the
circumstances upon which he relies.
Furthermore, as per the dictum of the Hon’ble
Apex Court, the Accused is entitled under the law
to rely upon all the evidence presented in the
case, including that of the Complainant.
20. The Apex Court’s dictum clarifies that
the burden on the Accused to rebut the
presumption is not as stringent as proving guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt but is instead based
on the preponderance of probabilities. This means
that the Accused must present evidence that,
when weighed against the evidence presented by
the Complainant, shows that it is more likely than
not that the Accused did not owe the alleged debt.
21. After comprehending the scheme of
Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act and carefully considering the
KABC030212292024 20 CC.NO.12945/2024
precedents set by the Apex Court in the
aforementioned cases, let us discuss the materials
on record and ascertain whether the presumption
is indeed available to the Complainant under
Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act. We also need to determine
whether the Accused has successfully rebutted
the presumption in favor of the omplainant under
Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, and whether the Complainant
has discharged its onus of proof under Section
102 of the Indian Evidence Act after the Accused
has raised doubts by presenting a preponderance
of probabilities to rebut the presumption.
22. The complainant has stated that the
accused for the improvement for his business has
borrowed a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- by him and he
has transferred the same through the Bank. Ii is
KABC030212292024 21 CC.NO.12945/2024
to be seen that the accused has admitted the 2
cheques at Ex.P1 & Ex.P2 that belongs to him and
he has signed the said cheques. Further during
the cross examination PW1 it is suggested to the
complainant that the accused has given the said
two cheques as security to the loan transaction of
Rs.7,00,000/- taken from the accused. Also the
accused examined himself as DW1. During his
chief examination also he stated that in the year
2022 when his wife has started the business in
the name and style as S.V.Enterprises, she has
taken two cheques from him as per Ex.P1 and
Ex.P2 respectively.
23. It is to be seen that though the accused
has taken dual stands regarding the cheques at
Ex.P1 and P2 that he has given as a security to
the loan transaction of Rs.7,00,000/- from the
complainant and another stand as he has given
KABC030212292024 22 CC.NO.12945/2024
the said cheques to his wife for the starting of
business at S.V.Enterprises, but it is not in
dispute that the cheques at Ex.P1 and P2 cheques
belongs to the accused and he has signed the said
cheques and given to the complainant. Hence, as
per Sec.118 & 139 of Act the presumption favours
the complainant. Hence, the burden shifts to the
accused to rebut the said presumption in favour
of the complainant under the provision of the Act.
The accused in order to rebut the said
presumption has cross examined the PW1 and
also examined himself as DW1 and produced the
documents at Ex.D1 to Ex.D10
24. The complainant during his cross-
examination has categorically admitted that he
has transferred an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- from
his account to the account of M/s.
S.V.Enterprises. Further he categorically admitted
KABC030212292024 23 CC.NO.12945/2024
that he has given said amount for the business of
M/s. S.V.Enterprises and he has not given said
amount to the accused for any interest. For the
sake of clarity of the said admission is extracted
as under:
“”ಮೇಲೆ ಹೇಳಿದ 9 ಲಕ್ಷ ರೂಪಾಯಿಗಳನ್ನು ನಾನು ನನ್ನ
ಖಾತೆಯಿಂದ ಎಸ್ ವಿ ಎಂಟರ್ ಪ್ರೆೃಸಸ್ ಖಾತೆಗೆ ವರ್ಗಾವಣೆ
ಮಾಡಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಎಸ್ ವಿ ಎಂಟರ್ ಪ್ರೆೃಸಸ್ನ ಕರೆಂಟ್
ಅಕೌಂಟ್ ಖಾತೆ ಯಶ್ವಂತಪುರದಲ್ಲಿ ನನ್ನ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್ ಖಾತೆ
ಇರುವಲ್ಲಿಯೇ ಇದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ. ನಾನು 9 ಲಕ್ಷ
ರೂಪಾಯಿಗಳನ್ನು ಎಸ್ ವಿ ಎಂಟರ್ ಪ್ರೆೃಸಸ್ ಗೆ ವ್ಯವಹಾರಕ್ಕಾಗಿ
ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ನಾನು ಬಡ್ಡಿಗಾಗಿ ಆ ಹಣವನ್ನು
ಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದು ಅಲ್ಲ.”
25. Further it is seen that the complainant
has also admitted that his daughter by name
Pushpalatha is the owner of the said S.V.
Enterprises and the GST documents are also
stands in her name. The complainant himself
KABC030212292024 24 CC.NO.12945/2024
has produced the Bank Statement pertaining to
the S.V.Enterprises (P.S.Doors) for the period from
01.01.2022 to 16.04.2023 as per Ex.P9. In the
said document on 13.06.2022 there is transaction
of Rs.9,00,000/-. Further it is to be seen that as
stated above the complainant himself categorically
admitted that he has transferred the said amount
to the S.V.Enterprises Bank account. But the said
document is contrary to the pleadings at para
No.3 of the complaint that the accused was
carrying of the business of M/S.Preksha
Enterprises as a proprietor and for improvement
of his business of manufacturing P.S.Doors the
accused has borrowed a sum of Rs.9,00,000/-
from the complainant on 13.06.2022. The
complainant has not produced any documents
pertaining to M/S.Preksha Enterprises or for
having transferred the amount to the M/S
Preksha Enterprises though he has stated the he
KABC030212292024 25 CC.NO.12945/2024
has transferred the said amount through Bank
transfer.
26. It is to be seen that as per Ex.D1, the
GST Registration Certificate pertaining to
S.V.Enterprises (P.S.Doors) stands in the name of
Pushpalatha N who is none other than the
daugther of the complainant and wife of the
accused. As stated earlier even the complainant
has admitted that he has transferred the amount
of Rs.9,00,000/- to the Bank account of
S.V.Enterprises.
27. It is also pertinent to note that the
Ex.D1 to D4 documents are marked by
confronting the same to the complainant. Ex.D2 is
the copy of the legal notice dated 20.04.2023 and
Ex.D3 is the Memorandum of understanding
(MOU) between the accused and his wife dated
15.06.2023. The accused by relying upon the
KABC030212292024 26 CC.NO.12945/2024
said documents has contended that before the
decree of divorce and during the pendency of the
divorce petition in MC.377/2023, the complainant
has given notice to the accused as per Ex.D2 and
as per Memorandum of Understanding at Ex.D3
at page No.3 reference is made pertaining to the
notice at Ex.D2 and it is mentioned that in view of
the Memorandum of Understanding there is no
dues between parties and also the father of the
Pushpalatha. N i.e., complainant.
28. The complainant during his cross-
examination has categorically admitted the notice
at Ex.D2 and also MOU at Ex.D3 as it is marked
by confronting the complainant. As per the
statement of account at Ex.P9 which shows that
on 13.06.2022 the complainant transferred
Rs.9,00,000/- through RTGS to the account of
M/s. S. V. Enterprises. However the said
KABC030212292024 27 CC.NO.12945/2024
document is silent regarding the name of
beneficiary. Ex.D1 is the GST Registration
Certificate of M/s. S. V. Enterprises which shows
that one Pushpalatha N i.e., the daughter of the
complainant is the proprietor of the same. The
complainant has not produced any document to
show that the accused is also one of the
proprietor of M/s. S. V. Enterprises. Apart from
that there is no iota of evidence to show that the
accused has received the said amount of
Rs.9,00,000/- from the M/s. S. V. Enterprises.
28. The complainant in his complaint at
paragraph No.3 & 4 has stated that the accused
has borrowed sum of Rs.9,00,000/- for the
improvement of his business of M/s. Preksha
Enterprises and the accused has undertaken to
repay amount with an interest at the rate of 24%
p.a and after a lot of persuasion he has paid sum
KABC030212292024 28 CC.NO.12945/2024
of Rs.3,00,000/- as part of interest out of total
interest of Rs.3,24,000/-. Even in the notice at
Ex.P5 and also another notice at Ex.D2 speaks
regarding the rate of interest. But it is pertinent
note that the complainant during his cross-
examination has admitted that he has given the
amount to the business pertaining to M/s. S. V.
Enterprises but not for any interest. The said
admission is extracted as under.
“” ನಾನು 9 ಲಕ್ಷ ರೂಪಾಯಿಗಳನ್ನು ಎಸ್ ವಿ ಎಂಟರ್
ಪ್ರೆೃಸಸ್ಗೆ ವ್ಯವಹಾರಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ನಾನು
ಬಡ್ಡಿಗಾಗಿ ಆ ಹಣವನ್ನು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದು ಅಲ್ಲ. ”
“”ನಾನು ಆರೋಪಿತನಿಗೆ ಬಡ್ಡಿಗಾಗಿ ಯಾವುದೆ
ಹಣವನ್ನು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಮತ್ತು ಆತ ನನಗೆ ಯಾವುದೆ
ಬಡ್ಡಿಯನ್ನೂ ಕೂಡ ನನಗೆ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.”
29. Hence it could be seen that the said
admission of the complainant is contrary to the
case of the complainant. As stated earlier the
complainant has admitted that the MOU is
KABC030212292024 29 CC.NO.12945/2024
executed between the accused his wife and he
also put his signature as a witness.
30. The accused has admitted that the
cheque in question is belonging to him and the
signature is also that of his, though a
presumption shall be raised under Sec 139 of Act
that the cheque was issued in discharge of debt or
liability, but the accused herein has proved the
defense with preponderance of probabilities and
the complainant herein has failed to establish
that, he paid a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- to the
accused for the improvement of business at
M/s.Prekasha Enterprises on 13.06.2022 as
alleged by him. Admittedly the complainant has
produced Ex.P9 which is the Bank statement
pertaining to the M/s. S.V.Enterprises to which
his daughter is proprietor of the said Enterprises.
Thus, the presumption which is in favour of the
KABC030212292024 30 CC.NO.12945/2024
complainant stands successfully rebutted. Hence
this court helds that the complainant has failed to
prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt. Further it is held that there is no legally
enforceable debt as alleged by the complainant
and the accused has not committed U/sec. 138 of
NI Act. Hence for the above said reasons these
points an answered in the Negative.
31. POINT No.2 :- In the light of the reasons
on the point No.1 & 2, this court proceed to pass
the following;
ORDER
Acting under Sec. 255 (1) of Cr.PC, the accused
is acquitted of the offence punishable under
Section 138 of NI Act.
The bail bond of the accused shall stand
cancelled.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on the computer, computerized by her,
corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Court on this 09th day July,
2025).
(Smt.Dhanalakshmi.R)
XII Addl. CJM, Bengaluru
KABC030212292024 31 CC.NO.12945/2024
ANNEXURES
Witnesses examined for the Complainant:
P.W.1 : Sri. Nagappa
Documents exhibited for the Complainant:
Ex.P.01&2 : Cheques, Ex.P1(a)& 2(a) : signature of the accused Ex.P.03 : Bank Challans Ex.P.04 : Bank Endorsment Ex.P.05 : Copy of Legal Notice, Ex.P.06 : Postal Receipt Ex.P.07 : Postal track report Ex.P.08 : Letter Dt: 15.04.2023 Ex.P.09 : Bank Account Statement
Witnesses examined for the defence Accused:
D.W.1 : Sri. Bharath Gowda
Documents exhibited for the defence Accused:-
Ex.D.01 : GST Registration Form
Ex.D.02 : Zerox copy Notice dt: 20.04.2023
Ex.D.03 : Memorandum of Understanding
dt:15.06.2023
Ex.D.04 : Copy of Invoice of S.V. Enterprises
Ex.D.05 : Certified copy of Order sheet of
MC.No.377/2023
KABC030212292024 32 CC.NO.12945/2024
Ex.D.06 : Certified copy of Memorandum of
Agreement in MC.No.377/2023
Ex.D.07 : Certified copy of the petition in
MC.377/2023
Ex.D.08&9 : Certified copy of Vakalathnamas
Ex.D.10 : Rental Agreement dt: 11.05.2022
Digitally signed by
DHANALAKSHMI DHANALAKSHMI R
R Date: 2025.07.23
15:51:26 +0530
(Smt.Dhanalakshmi.R)
XII Addl. CJM, Bengaluru
KABC030212292024 33 CC.NO.12945/2024
03.07.2025 For Judgment by 07.07.2025
XII ACJM, Bengaluru
07.07.2025 For Judgment by 08.07.2025
XII ACJM, Bengaluru
08.07.2025 For Judgment by 09.07.2025
XII ACJM, Bengaluru
09.07.2025
For judgment
(Judgment pronounced in the open court
vide separate Order)
ORDER
Acting under Sec. 255 (1) of Cr.PC, the
accused is acquitted of the offence punishable
under Section 138 and Section 142 of NI Act.
The bail bond of the accused shall
stand cancelled.
XII ACJM, Bengaluru
KABC030212292024 34 CC.NO.12945/2024
[ad_2]
Source link