[ad_1]
Bangalore District Court
Prakash B vs Honnagangaiah on 13 May, 2025
1
C.C.No.28593/2022
KABC030718892022
Presented on : 07-09-2022
Registered on : 07-09-2022
Decided on : 13-05-2025
Duration : 2 years, 8 months, 6 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XXII ADDL.CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
PRESENT : SRI.JAI SHANKAR.J,
B.A.L., LL.B
XXII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
DATED: THIS THE 13TH 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. : 28593/2021
COMPLAINANT : Sri. Prakash. B,
S/o. Basappa,
Aged about 43 years,
Residing at No.1,
2nd Floor, 2nd Main Road,
11th A Cross, Prashanth Nagar,
Bengaluru - 560 079.
(By Sri. R. Srinivas., Adv.,)
2
C.C.No.28593/2022
V/S.
ACCUSED : Sri. Honnagangaiah,
S/o. Honnappa,
Aged about 60 years,
Residing at No.77/10,
Benaka, 6th Cross,
6th Main Road, Maruthi Nagar,
Nagarabhavi,
Bengaluru - 560 072.
(By Sri. G.Chandrashekharaiah., 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 : 13.05.2025
JUDGMENT
This is a private complaint filed by the complainant
against the accused for the offence punishable under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is as
under:
The complainant and the accused are well acquainted
with each other. Under such acquittance, the accused
3
C.C.No.28593/2022borrowed a hand loan of Rs.2,50,000/- from the
complainant on 20.10.2019, assuring to return the amount
within six months. After the lapse of six months, when the
complainant approached the accused for its repayment, he
issued the cheque bearing No.018240, dt: 23.06.2020 for
Rs.2,50,000/- drawn on Bengaluru City Co-operative Bank
Ltd., Avalahalli branch, Bengaluuru, assuring that, on
presentation it would be honored. When the complainant
presented the cheque for encashment through his banker
ie., HDFC Bank Ltd., Chandra Layout branch, Bengaluru,
the same came to be dishonored with shara as “Funds
Insufficient” on 29.06.2020. On bringing the said fact to
the knowledge of the accused, he further sought two months
time to return it and requested to re-present it in the
2nd week of September 2020. Again, the complainant
believing the representation of the accused, presented
through his banker ie., HDFC Bank, but again it dishonored
with the shara as Funds Insufficient vide memo
4
C.C.No.28593/2022dt;11.09.2020. Immediately, the complainant got issued
the legal notice dt:24.09.2020 through RPAD demanding the
repayment of the cheque amount. The said notice was
served on 25.09.2020 and inspite of receipt of notice, the
accused has not chosen to pay the cheque amount, 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. 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. 018240, dt:
23.06.2020 for Rs.2,50,000/- drawn on
5
C.C.No.28593/2022Bengaluru City Co-operative Bank Ltd.,
Avalahalli branch, Bengaluuru, towards
discharge of his liability which was returned
unpaid on presentation for the reason “Funds
Insufficient” 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.5 of the complainant is being treated as the
complainant evidence as per the decision rendered by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Indian Bank Association Vs. Union of
India and Ors., reported in 2010 (5) SCC 590. Thereafter,
the complainant examining further got marked Ex.P.6 to 18
documents and closed his side evidence. Statement as
required U/s. 313 of Cr.P.C was recorded and read over the
contents to the accused, but he denied the incriminating
evidence appeared against him and submitted that, he has
the evidence but he has not chosen to adduce his side
evidence.
6
C.C.No.28593/2022
6. Heard. Both side filed their written arguments. The
defence relied upon the decision reported in AIR 2009 SC
1518 M/s. Kumar Export Vs. Sharma Carpets, which
deals on the point of presumption.
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
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.018240, dt:23.06.2020 for
Rs.2,50,000/- drawn on Bengaluru City Co-operative Bank
Ltd., Avalahalli branch, Bengaluuru, assuring that, on
presentation it would be honoured. On such assurance,
7
C.C.No.28593/2022
when he presented the said cheque, it returned unpaid
with an endorsement as Funds Insufficient. Thereby, he
got issued the legal notice dt:24.09.2020 which was served
on the accused and inspite of which, he has not chosen to
comply the demand, which has given a cause of action to
file the complaint.
10. To substantiate his case, the sworn statement is
being treated as evidence. The complainant has reiterated
the contents of complaint in his evidence about the
accused approaching him and he advancing hand loan of
Rs.2,50,000/- on 20.10.2019 and the accused issuing the
cheque at Ex.P.1 towards the repayment of the loan
amount which came to be dishonored as per Ex.P 3 as
Funds Insufficient. He also deposed about, he issuing the
notice as per Ex.P.4 and the accused failing to oblige the
same.
11. In this scenario, if the documents placed by the
complainant is scrutinized, the complainant in order to
8
C.C.No.28593/2022
examine the compliance of statutory requirements as
envisaged U/s.138 of NI Act, he got produced the Ex.P.1
the cheque dt:23.06.2020. The said cheque is returned with
an endorsement as Funds Insufficient as per Ex.P.3, the
return advise dt: 11.09.2020. The Ex.P.4 is the office copy
of the legal notice dt:24.09.2020. The present complaint is
filed on 19.01.2021. 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 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
9
C.C.No.28593/2022
referred circular and order comes to the rescue of the
complainant and it suffices that, the complaint being filed
on 19.01.2021 is well in time.
12. 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.
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
10
C.C.No.28593/2022
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.
13. A combined reading of the referred sections raises
a presumption infavour 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. No doubt, the said presumptions
of law are rebuttable in nature, the accused 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
complainant can be rebutted even by effectively cross-
examining the complainant, rather entering the witness
box. So here, it is relevant to note that, whether the
accused by cross examining the complainant has really
rebutted the presumption available under the law which
requires due consideration. It is the case of the
11
C.C.No.28593/2022
complainant that, as the accused was well conversant with
him had borrowed Rs.2,50,000/- on 20.10.2019 and
towards the discharge of the said liability, has issued the
cheque at Ex.P1. The cheque was presented at the initial
stage, but it returned dishonored as Funds Insufficient as
per Ex.P.2 and on further instruction by the accused, when
the same was re-presented, it dishonoured with the similar
shara as Funds Insufficient as per Ex.P.3. Therefore he got
issued the demand notice as per Ex.P.4 and it was delivered
on the accused. However, he has not chosen to comply the
demand under the notice, but got issued the untenable
reply as per Ex.P.5. Therefore, he claiming that, he has
established his case by oral and documentary evidence and
that, the disputed cheque is being issued towards the
discharge of the legal liability, claims that, he is entitled to
claim the benefit of presumption and seeks for conviction.
14. On the other hand, the accused has totally
disputed the complainant case by not only denying the loan
12
C.C.No.28593/2022
transaction and the issuance of the cheque to the
complainant, but has seriously questioned the well
acquaintance of the complainant by contending the
complainant is totally stranger to him. He has taken a
specific contention that, he never had money transaction
with the complainant, but the complainant’s father
Sri.Basappa.M was conducting a chit business in which
he was one of the subscriber/ participant for an amount of
Rs.1 lakh. He was the bidder of the chit amount and while
acknowledging the chit amount of Rs.90,000/- in the
month of September 2019, the complainant’s father Sri.
Basappa.M had collected three signed blank cheques
bearing No. 018240, 018239 & 018235 drawn on
Bangalore City Co-operative Ban Ltd., Avalahalli branch.
Out of the said cheques, the disputed cheque at Ex.P.1
which is being misused by the complainant in collusion
with his father. He also claims that, he has repaid the chit
amount of Rs.90,000/- within six months and inspite of
13
C.C.No.28593/2022
repeated request and demand to return back the said
three cheques, the said Basappa.M has not responded
him, but after the service of the reply notice at Ex.P.5, he
had returned back two cheques bearing No. 018239 &
018235, but has not returned the disputed cheque at Ex.P.1
which is being misused & thereby claiming that, he never
issued the disputed cheque to the complainant for any legal
liability and by questioning the financial capacity of the
complainant claims that, he has rebutted the presumption
and claims for acquittal.
15. So, in the back ground of the rival claims of the
parties with the oral and documentary evidence available
on record, it goes to indicate that, the accused has not
disputed the cheque at Ex.P.1 does belongs to him and also,
the signature therein. Even, he has not disputed the fact
of the disputed cheque at Ex.P.1 being dishonored as per
Ex.P.2 & 3. Even, the accused has not disputed the receipt
of demand notice at Ex.P.4. Perhaps, the Ex.P.5 the reply
14
C.C.No.28593/2022
notice itself establishes the demand notice being served on
the accused. Here, the complainant claims that, as the
accused is well aquatinted with him, had advanced
Rs.2,50,000/-. Though, the accused at one breath deny the
acquittance of the complainant and claim that, he is a
stranger, but at another breath, he claims that, the
complainant is stranger so far the loan transaction is
concerned and contend that, the complainant’s father
Basappa.M is well known to him. So, here this admission
would go to indicate that, the complainant and accused are
well aquatinted with each other.
16. It is also relevant to note that, the accused has
not only denied the loan transaction, but has also
questioned the financial capacity of the complainant to
advance the loan amount of Rs.2,50,000/-. In this regard,
the complainant has categorically deposed that, he is
working in the accounts branch of I.T company from past
14 years and his monthly income is at Rs.45,000/-. This
15
C.C.No.28593/2022
deposition is not being denied by the accused. Perhaps, the
complainant apart from deposing on the point of his
occupation and of his income, he has also got produced the
Ex.P.12 to 17 the salary slips of the month February 2019,
May 2019, June 2019, August 2019 to October 2019 which
would go to indicate the monthly salary of the accused is
between Rs.41,333/- to 48,751/-. Again, these documents
are never being challenged by the accused. When the
complainant has clearly deposed with regard to his
occupation and of his income, it was incumbent upon the
accused to disprove these documents. No doubt, the
complainant was being subjected elaborately with cross
examination on these documents and on the point of
financial capacity, but nothing worth is being elicited from
the mouth of the complainant to disbelieve his evidence
either on the point of occupation or on the point of income
or on Ex.P.12 to 17. It would not be wrong to say that, these
documents would establish the source of income and would
16
C.C.No.28593/2022
also establish the financial capacity of the complainant to
advance Rs.2,50,000/-.
17. It is an admitted fact that, apart from the
disputed cheque at Ex.P.1, the complainant has not placed
his reliance on any other documents. It is an admitted fact
that, the complainant’s father is owning a tailor shop at
Iyyanna Shetty Layout, Mysore Road and also, the accused
is the adjacent shop owner called in the name and styled as
Novelty Stores. Even, it is also an admitted fact that, the
complainant’s father being well acquainted with the
accused, there was also a money transaction between them
and its repayment. Here, the complainant has categorically
deposed the manner how the accused has approached him
for the hand loan of Rs.2,50,000/- and he advancing it on
20.10.2019. He also deposed the fact of the accused issuing
the disputed cheque and it being dishonored. As said
above, apart from the disputed cheque, there is no other
documents on which the complainant has placed his
17
C.C.No.28593/2022
reliance. Can it be said that, merely placing the disputed
cheque alone would suffice to establish the loan transaction
which requires due consideration. No doubt, the
complainant has adduced his oral evidence by producing
Ex.P.1 and has not placed his reliance on any other
documents to establish his claim, but even the defence
raised by the accused also makes more probable so as to
appreciate the case of the complainant. Because, it is an
admitted fact that, the disputed cheque is not being
dishonored for the first time on 11.09.2020 as per Ex.P.3,
but it is also being dishonored initially on 29.06.2020 as
Ex.P.2.
18. This fact and the dishonour at Ex.P.2 is not being
denied by the accused. Even, he cannot plead his ignorance
so far the disputed cheque being dishonored as per Ex.P.2
and also, he cannot plead ignorance of the possession of the
disputed cheque with complainant. Because, on the
disputed cheque being dishonored on 29.06.2020 as per
18
C.C.No.28593/2022
Ex.P.2, certainly the said fact would be within the
knowledge of the accused. When the accused has denied
the loan transaction and the issuance of the disputed
cheque at Ex.P.1 and it being dishonored as per Ex.P.2,
nothing had prevented him to initiate some legal action
against the complainant or against the complainant’s father
Basappa.M by taking the initial stand, which admittedly
not forthcoming. Here, the accused claims that, the
complainant’s father was doing a chit business and he was
one of the participant/subscriber for Rs.1 lakh and he
being the highest bidder, had handed over three signed
blank cheques bearing no.018240, 018239 & 018235
towards the security purpose on the receipt of Rs.90,000/-
and he happens to have repaid it after six months. He also
claim that, on the repayment of the said amount, he had
demanded the return of the cheques, but the complainant’s
father Basappa.M had not responded and therefore, the
complainant’s father colluding with the complainant has
19
C.C.No.28593/2022
filed the present complaint. No doubt, the accused has
seriously disputed the complainant claim by taking the
stand of the chit transaction with the complainant’s father
Basappa.M and he handing over the disputed cheque to
Basappa.M, but admittedly to appreciate the said fact,
either the complainant has elicited the said fact from the
mouth fo the complainant nor has produced any piece of
evidence to hold the complainant’s father conducting the
chit business.
19. Perhaps, when the accused claim the
complainant’s father was running a chit transaction, again
nothing had prevented him to produce any piece of
evidence for remitting the monthly chit amount nor had
any impediment to examine any one of the
participant/subscriber of the said chit transaction. Even,
nothing had prevented him to disclose the name of the
participant/subscribers or the number of the participant/
subscribers of the chit fund. Even, he has not placed any
20
C.C.No.28593/2022
piece of evidence to show the receipt of Rs.90,000/- the
chit amount from the complainant father nor has produced
any piece of evidence of its repayment. When, the accused
is so particular that, he has acknowledged Rs.90,000/- in
the month of September 2019 and he handing over three
singed blank cheques to the complainant’s father, nothing
had prevented him to get reduced in writing. Even, nothing
had prevented him to produce any piece of evidence of the
repayment as he claimed and nothing had prevented him to
demand the return of three blank cheques in writing. No
doubt, he claims that, he has repaid the entire chit amount
and that, the complainant’s father had not responded to
return back the three cheques, again he had no
impediment to initiate some legal action either against the
complainant or his father or to demand the return of the
cheque in writing. No doubt, he has averred the fact of he
handing over the three cheques in the reply notice at
Ex.P.5 and that, the complainant’s father colluding with the
21
C.C.No.28593/2022
complainant happens to have got presented the cheque at
Ex.P.1 to the bank, but again nothing had prevented the
accused either to initiate some legal action against the
complainant and his father nor he had any impediment to
stop the payment of the cheque, more particularly when he
claims to have repaid the amount and the complainant’s
father had avoided to return back the cheque. But,
admittedly no such efforts are being made by the accused
so as to appreciate his defence. On the other hand, not only
the Ex.P.2 would go to indicate that, the disputed cheque is
being dishonored for want of sufficient funds, but the Ex.P.3
would also go to indicate that, the cheque is being
dishonored for want of sufficient fund. So, it is very clear
that, on the presentation of the disputed cheque, there was
no sufficient funds in the account of the accused.
20. No doubt, the accused also claims that, the
complainant’s father returning back the two cheques
bearing No.018235 & 018239 on the receipt of the reply
22
C.C.No.28593/2022
notice at Ex.P.5, but again there is no evidence to establish
the fact that, the said cheques were being handed over to
the complainant’s father. Even, there was no impediment for
the accused to get confronted the said cheques to the
complainant so as to appreciate his case. It is an admitted
fact that, no prudent man would issue the cheque and
squat over the matter unless it is being issued towards the
legal liability. In the case in hand, the disputed cheque at
Ex.P.1 and the signature appearing therein belongs to the
accused is an admitted fact. Though, the accused has
taken a specific defence that, he had handed over the
disputed cheque to the complainant’s father in a chit
transaction, but having he failed to produce any probable
evidence to establish it and also, he failing to put the above
referred efforts, it has to be construed that, the defence
raised by the accused is only to avoid the legal liability
under the cheque and nothing else. In this back ground,
when the accused admits the disputed cheque pertains to
23
C.C.No.28593/2022
him and so also, the signature appearing therein, in the
absence of establishing his defence, it has to be construed
that, he has issued the disputed cheque towards the
discharge of the receipt amount. If that fact is appreciated,
it suffices that, he has raised loan from the complainant
and he has issued the disputed cheque towards the
discharge of loan liability and this fact is established by the
complainant by placing the positive evidence.
21. In this back ground, for the discussion made
above, it could be said that, though, the accused has taken
a probable defence to disprove the complainant case, but
that is not being established by placing the positive
evidence. The very oral evidence available on record, totally
contradictory to the documentary evidence. 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 handed over
to the complainant’s father towards the security purpose.
24
C.C.No.28593/2022
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.
22. 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, aptly applies to the case in hand. In the
case in hand, the accused has admitted the disputed
cheques pertains to her. 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 onus to disprove it, shifts on
the accused which is not been proved by placing positive
evidence. In this background, having the accused not
25
C.C.No.28593/2022
disputed the complainant case by placing positive evidence
which favours his case, I am of the considered view that,
the cheque issued by the accused at Ex.P.1 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.
23. 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
26
C.C.No.28593/2022
presumption U/s.118 of N.I.Act goes in favour of the
complainant. No doubt, as said statutory presumptions are
rebuttable in 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. To put it
in other way, the burden lies upon the accused to prove the
cheque in question at Ex.P.1 was not issued for the
discharge of debt or liability.
24. 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
27
C.C.No.28593/2022
was not issued towards the legal liability, but the said fact
and the version is not been established.
25. From the discussion made supra, it could 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. To put it in other way, the accused though taken a
probable defence, but it is not been established by placing
the positive evidence. The presumption of law lies in favour
of the complainant as envisaged U/s.118 R/w. Sec. 139 of
N.I.Act. 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 liability, the accused has issued Ex.P.1 and
it is being dishonored for the reasons Funds Insufficient
as per Ex.P.3. Therefore, Point No.1 is answered in the
“Affirmative’.
28
C.C.No.28593/2022
26. 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
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
29
C.C.No.28593/2022
would meet the ends of justice. By considering these
aspects, I am of the considered view that, it would be just
and proper to impose fine of Rs. 2,55,000/-. Out of the
compensation of Rs.2,55,000/-, an amount of
Rs.2,50,000/- shall be awarded to the complainant U/s.357
of Cr.P.C. 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.2,55,000/- (Rupees
Two Lakhs and Fifty 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.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs
and Fifty Thousand only), there from shall be
paid to the complainant as compensation. The
remaining fine amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five
Thousand only) is defrayed to the state for the
expenses incurred in the prosecution.
30
C.C.No.28593/2022
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 13th day of May 2025).
JAI Digitally signed by
JAI SHANKAR J
SHANKAR Date: 2025.05.13
J 16:02:17 +0530
(JAI SHANKAR.J)
XXII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
List of witnesses examined on behalf of complainant:-
PW.1 : Sri. Prakash. B
List of exhibits marked on behalf of complainant:-
Ex.P1 : Original cheque
Ex.P1(a) : Signature of the accused
Ex.P2 & 3 : Bank Memos
Ex.P4 : Legal notice
Ex.P5 : Reply notice
Ex.P6 : Certified copy of order sheet of CC
7912/2021
Ex.P7 : Certified copy of Deposition
Ex.P8 : Certified copy of cheque and
endorsement
Ex.P9 : Certified copy of legal notice
Ex.P10 : Certified copy of postal receipt
31
C.C.No.28593/2022
Ex.P11 : Certified copy of postal envelope
Ex.P12 to 17 : Salary certificates
Ex.P.18 : Certificate U/s. 65 B of Indian
Evidence Act
.
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the accused:-
– Nil –
List of exhibits marked on behalf of the accused:-
– Nil –
Digitally signed
JAI by JAI
SHANKAR J
SHANKAR Date:
J 2025.05.13
16:02:22 +0530
(JAI SHANKAR.J)
XXII Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bengaluru.
32
C.C.No.28593/2022
[ad_2]
Source link