Bangalore District Court
Ramesha A N vs Rajanna H on 12 August, 2025
1
C.C.No.4014/2022
KABC030134252022
Presented on : 21-02-2022
Registered on : 21-02-2022
Decided on : 12-08-2025
Duration : 3 years, 5 months, 19 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XXII ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
PRESENT: SRI.JAI SHANKAR.J,
B.A.L., LL.B
XXII ADDL.C.J.M., BENGALURU.
DATED: THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025
JUDGMENT U/s.278(2) of BNSS -2023
(OLD CORRESPONDENCE NO. 255(2) OF CODE OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
C.C.NO. : 4014/2022
COMPLAINANT : Sri. A.N. Ramesha,
S/o. Ningappa,
Aged about 43 years,
R/at No. 278, 7th Cross,
Kempegowdanagara,
Magadi Main Road,
2
C.C.No.4014/2022
Vishwaneedam Post,
Bengaluru - 560 091.
(By Sri. C.C.Narayana., Adv.)
V/s.
ACCUSED : Sri. Rajanna. H,
S/o. Hanumanthaiah,
Aged about 50 years,
R/at No. 292, 4th Cross,
Magadi Main Road,
Vishwaneedam Post,
Kempegowdanagara,
Bengaluru - 560 091.
(By Sri. V. Rajanna., Adv., )
Offence complained : U/s.138 of N.I.Act
of
Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Accused is Convicted
Date of order : 12.08.2025
JUDGMENT
This is a private complaint filed by the complainant
against the accused for the offence punishable under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
3
C.C.No.4014/2022
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is as
under:
It is contended that, the complainant and the accused
are well acquainted with each other and under such
acquittance, the accused has approached the complainant
for the hand loan of Rs.6 lakhs in the first week of July
2018 to purchase a site and also, to meet his family needs.
Considering the request, the complainant has advanced Rs.6
lakhs ie., Rs.2 lakh on 10.07.2018 and Rs.1 lakh on
11.07.2018 through bank transfer and Rs.3 lakhs on
11.07.2018 by way of a cash on the assurance that, the
accused would return the amount within a year. Due to
pandemic of Covid-19, the accused has postponed the
payment and finally, on repeated demand and request, the
accused issued the cheque bearing no.068897, dt:
28.06.2021 for Rs.6 lakhs drawn on Vijaya Bank,
4C.C.No.4014/2022
Sunkadakatte branch Bangalore -91, assuring its honour.
On such assurance, when the complainant presented the
cheque through his banker ie., Bank of Baroda,
Sunkadakatte branch, Bengaluru, it dishonored with shara
as “Funds Insufficient” vide memo dt:27.09.2021. Thereby,
the complainant got issued the demand notice
dt:13.10.2021 through RPAD which served on the accused.
Despite the service of notice, the accused has not chosen to
comply it, which has given cause of action to file the
present complaint.
3. After filing of the complaint, this court has taken
cognizance of the offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I.Act.
Sworn statement of the complainant was recorded. Being
satisfied that, there are prima-facie materials to proceed
against accused, summons was issued. After appearance of
the accused, he was enlarged on bail and plea was recorded.
5
C.C.No.4014/2022
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.068897,
dt: 28.06.2021 for Rs.6 lakhs drawn on
Vijaya Bank, Sunkadakatte branch
Bangalore -91, 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 by the complainant is being treated as the
complainant evidence as per the decision of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in Indian Bank Association Vs. Union of India
6
C.C.No.4014/2022
and Ors., reported in 2010 (5) SCC 590. The statement of
the accused as required U/s.313 of Cr.P.C was read over
and explained to accused, he denied the incriminating
evidence appeared against him and submitted that, he has
the evidence and accordingly, he is being examined as DW.1
and got marked Ex.D.1 and D.1(a) document and closed his
side evidence.
6. Heard from both side. The Defence has relied on
the decisions reported in 2009 (4) KLJ 26 – Smt. H.R.
Nagarathna Vs. Smt. Jayashree Prasad; 2008 (3) KCCR
1569 – K. Narayana Nayak – M. Shivarama Shetty, ILR
2008 KAR 4929; (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 166; (2006) 6 SCC
39, 1995 CRL. L.J. 560.
All these decisions are dealt on the point of burden of
proof, presumption and rebuttable presumption.
7
C.C.No.4014/2022
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.068897, dt:28.06.2021 for
Rs.6 lakhs drawn on Vijaya Bank, Sunkadakatte branch
Bangalore -91, which is being dishonored with shara as
Funds Insufficient. Thereby, he got issued the legal notice
dt: 13.10.2021 which served on the accused and despite
which, he has not chosen to comply the demand, which has
given a cause of action to file the complaint.
8
C.C.No.4014/2022
10. In this scenario, if the documents placed by the
complainant is scrutinized, the complainant in order to
examine the compliance of statutory requirements as
envisaged U/s.138 of NI Act, he got produced the Ex.P.1 the
cheque dt:28.06.2021. The said cheque is returned with an
endorsement as Funds Insufficient as per Ex.P2, the return
advise dt:27.09.2021, Ex.P.3 is the office copy of the legal
notice dt:13.10.2021, Ex.P.4 is the postal receipt and
Ex.P.5 is the postal acknowledgment which indicates the
notice being served on14.10.2021. The present complaint is
filed on 19.11.2021 which is well in time.
11. A careful scrutiny of the documents relied by the
complainant goes to show that, a statutory requirement of
Sec.138 of NI Act is being complied with and this complaint
is filed well in time. The complainant has discharged his
initial burden by examining him as PW.1 and by producing
9
C.C.No.4014/2022
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
shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that, the
holder of a cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred
to in Sec. 138, for the discharge, in whole or in part, or any
debt or any other liability.
12. A combined reading of the referred sections raises
a presumption infavour of the holder of the cheque that,
10
C.C.No.4014/2022
she/he has received the same for discharge in whole or in
part of any debt or other liability. No doubt, the said
presumptions of law are rebuttable in nature, the accused
can take probable defense in the scale of preponderance of
probabilities to rebut the presumption available to the
complainant. It is need less to say that, the evidence of the
PW.1 can be rebutted even by effectively cross-examining
the PW.1, rather entering the witness box.
13. So here, it is relevant to note that, whether the
accused by cross examining the PW.1 and adducing his
evidence, has really rebutted the presumption available
under the law which requires due consideration. It is the
case of the complainant that, the accused had raised hand
loan of Rs.6 lakhs and towards the discharge of the said
loan, he had issued the disputed cheque at Ex.P.1 which is
being dishonored. On the other hand, the accused denies
11
C.C.No.4014/2022
the loan transaction and also, denies the issuance of the
cheque to the complainant towards any legal liability but
contends that, the amount which the complainant claims to
have transferred through the bank transfer/NEFT is the
loan availed by the complainant from him and it is the
repayment amount. He also contends that, he is financially
well as he is getting good rental income and also, owning 5
transport vehicles and he has several drivers. One of the
driver by name Manju had availed a loan of Rs.2 lakhs from
the complainant in the year 2017 on the interest of 5% p.m
and while borrowing the said loan, the complainant has
collected the cheque and the promissory note of the said
Manju and his blank cheque towards the security purpose.
The said Manju has repaid the entire loan amount and
during the pandemic of Covid-19, he reported to be dead
and taking the advantage of the said fact, the complainant
12
C.C.No.4014/2022
has filed the present complaint with an intention to gain
unlawful and thereby, questioning the financial capacity
and the service of the demand notice, claims that he has
rebutted the presumption.
14. In the back ground of the rival claims of the
parties with the oral and documentary evidence available on
record, it could be asserted that, both the complainant and
the accused being well acquainted is not in dispute. The
disputed cheque at Ex.P.1 and the signature appearing
therein at Ex.P.1(a) belongs to the accused is also not in
dispute. Even, the disputed cheque being dishonored as per
Ex.P.2 for want of sufficient funds is also not in dispute.
Even, the complainant transferring Rs.2 lakhs on
10.07.2018 and Rs.1 Lakh on 11.07.2018 to the account of
the accused through NEFT is also not in dispute. Though
the complainant has not produced any documentary proof
13
C.C.No.4014/2022
or the bank statement with regard to the above referred
transfer, but apart from admitting the receipt of the
amount, the accused himself has got produced the bank
statement at Ex.D.1 which clearly suffices an amount of
Rs.2 lakhs being transferred on 10.07.2018 and Rs.1 lakh
on 01.07.2018 to his account through the complainant
account.
15. Here, the dispute is whether the amount referred
above is the hand loan amount availed by the accused or
is it the repayment of the loan amount alleged to be
borrowed by the complainant. It would not be wrong to say
that, when the accused has taken the defence that, the
referred amount is the repayment of the alleged loan
amount raised by the complainant, it would be burden
upon him to establish the said fact. Because, here the
Ex.D.1 would establish the transfer of the amount of
14
C.C.No.4014/2022
Rs.3 lakhs from the account of the complainant to his
account. So, therefore, the accused has to discharge the
said burden so as to rebut the presumption. Here, many
questions were posed with regard to the financial capacity of
the complainant. The accused nowhere disputes the fact of
complainant owning a garments at Sunkadakatte as well as
at Moodalapalya. The complainant has clearly deposed that,
he has a monthly income of Rs.1,20,000/-. Here, the
accused do not dispute the complainant owning the above
referred garments, but on the other hand, he also takes the
contention that, the complainant used to take his vehicles
on rent for the transportation of the garment business.
Though, the accused has taken a contention that the
complainant himself had raised loan from many people and
he himself was due and therefore, he had no financial
capacity to advance the amount, but admittedly he has not
15
C.C.No.4014/2022
chosen to place any probable evidence to appreciate the fact
of he raising a loan from many peoples and so also, to
disbelieve the financial capacity of the complainant. When
the accused has failed to elicit the fact of the complainant
raising a loan from many peoples and he facing a financial
crisis, merely taking the said defence would not permit the
accused to say that, he has rebutted the presumption so as
to disbelieve the financial capacity of the complainant.
Perhaps, the very admission of the accused that, the
complainant owning the garments and he using his
vehicles for the purpose of transportation of garment
materials suffices that, the complainant was financially well.
16. As said above, though the complainant has taken
a contention that, it is a complainant who had borrowed
Rs.3 lakh from him and the said amount which is being
transferred through NEFT on 10.07.2018 and 11.07.2018 is
16
C.C.No.4014/2022
the repayment of the alleged loan amount, but again the
accused has not chosen to produce any iota of evidence to
appreciate the said defence. Perhaps, in his evidence he has
categorically admitted that, he has no proof to show that, he
had advanced Rs.3 lakhs to the complainant. Here, it is
relevant to note that, when the accused claim that, the
referred amount is the repayment of the alleged loan
amount, he could have got reduced the said fact in writing,
which admittedly not forthcoming. Even, the complainant
has categorically denied the suggestion posed in the cross-
examination. When, the accused has utterly failed to elicit
the fact of the repayment by placing the probable evidence,
it cannot be said that, he has rebutted the presumption
and that, the transferred amount is the alleged loan
amount. In the absence of the evidence, it has to be
construed that, the amount transferred by the complainant
17
C.C.No.4014/2022
to the account of the accused is the loan amount as pleaded
in the complaint and not the defence as raised by the
accused.
17. Here, there accused has also taken a specific
contention that, he was owning five transport vehicles and
he was getting a good rental incomes and therefore, he was
financially well. Perhaps, he contends that, one of his driver
by name Manju had borrowed Rs.2 lakhs in the year 2017
from the complainant on the monthly interest of Rs.5%.
The said Manju was paying interest of Rs.10,000/- p.m.
While he raising the loan, the complainant had collected the
on demand promissory note and the blank cheque of the
said Manju and so also, collected the blank disputed
cheque of the accused as he was the employer of the said
Manju towards the security purpose. The said Manju
happens to have cleared the entire loan amount, but due to
18
C.C.No.4014/2022
pandemic of Covid-19 was reported to be dead and
therefore, taking the advantage of his death, the
complainant alleges to have filed the present complaint to
gain unlawfully. So, here the accused takes a serious
contention that, it is the Manju who had borrowed the loan
and he had issued the disputed cheque towards the security
purpose. But, by gathering the entire oral and documentary
evidence, it goes to indicate that, the defence raised by the
accused appears to be unacceptable as he has not chosen
to establish the said fact by eliciting from the mouth of the
PW.1 or by placing the probable evidence. Here, it is
relevant to note that, though the accused claim that he
owns five transport vehicle and he had drivers by name
Ranganna, Manju Ranganath, Prakash and Rangaswamy,
but either, he chosen to produce any piece of evidence to
show that he had five vehicles or had the above referred
19
C.C.No.4014/2022
drivers. No doubt, the accused claim that he has sold all the
vehicles, but nothing had prevented him to produce the
previous documents of the vehicles or to examine the above
referred drivers or the purchased owners so as to appreciate
his defence. The accused claims that, he used to pay
Rs.18,000/- as a salary to the drivers. He could have
produced some account ledger or any proof to appreciate
the said defence. He has not made out the ground as to why
he has not chosen to examine any one of the driver so as to
appreciate his defence. When, the accused failed to produce
any iota of evidence with regard to he owning the vehicle
and also the drivers, it cannot be said that, he was the
owner of five vehicles and he had the drivers as referred
above.
18. Here, it is relevant to note that, though the
accused claim that he had a driver by name Manju who
20
C.C.No.4014/2022
alleged to had borrowed Rs.2 lakhs from the complainant in
the year 2017 for which he alleges to have issued the blank
disputed cheque towards the security purpose, but again he
has not produced any piece of evidence to establish that,
there was an existence of a person called Manju and that,
he alleged to have raised loan from the complainant. Here,
the accused has not made out a case as to why the said
Manju had borrowed the loan from the complainant and
that, he being the employer of the Manju had handed over
the blank cheque to the complainant. This defence appears
to be unacceptable. Perhaps, when he himself claims that,
he was financially well, he could have advanced the loan of
Rs.2 lakh to the said Manju, rather he standing as a surety
for the loan raised with the complainant. Moreso, the
employer standing as a surety or a guarantee to the
employee for the loan raised from the 3rd person appears to
21
C.C.No.4014/2022
be unacceptable. Perhaps, there is no proof forthcoming to
hod that, there was a loan transaction between the Manju
and the complainant. Even, there is no evidence
forthcoming to hold that, the disputed cheque was being
issued towards the security purpose.
19. Even, for a moment if it is construed that, the
said Manju had borrowed loan from the complainant by
handing over the disputed cheque towards the security
purpose, but when the accused claim that, the said Manju
was paying interest of Rs.10,000/- and so also, he has
repaid the entire receipt amount of Rs.2 lakh, nothing had
prevented him to demand the return of the cheque in
writing. There is no probable evidence to establish the
repayment of the alleged loan as claimed by the defence.
Either, he has mentioned the mode of repayment or the
particular year of its payment. Nothing, had prevented the
22
C.C.No.4014/2022
accused to demand the return of the cheque in writing and
also, to initiate some complaint in case of the complainant
refusing to return the cheque. Much less, he could have
requested his bank to stop the payment of the cheque by
disclosing the real incident, rather the Ex.P.2 would
indicate that it is being dishonored for want of sufficient
funds. Forgetting this, he could have replied the demand
notice by taking his initial stand. He has not chosen to reply
it.
20. Here, it is relevant to note that, though he has
taken a defence that no notice was being served on him, but
in the course of his cross-examination, he has categorically
admitted the signature appearing in the postal
acknowledgment at Ex.P5 does pertains to his wife. The
admission reads like this, “ನನ್ನ ಹೆಂಡತಿಯ ಹೆಸರು ಲೀಲಾವತಿ. ನಾನು
ಮನೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಇಲ್ಲದ ಪಕ್ಷದಲ್ಲಿ ನಮ್ಮ ಮನೆಯವರು ಅಂಚೆ ಪತ್ರವನ್ನು ಪಡೆಯುತ್ತಾರೆ
23
C.C.No.4014/2022
ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ನಿಪಿ.5 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಕಂಡು ಬರುವ ಸಹಿಯು ನನ್ನ ಹೆಂಡತಿಯ ಸಹಿ ಎಂದರೆ
ಸರಿ”. So, this admission suffices that, the demand notice
was being served on the accused through his wife. If really,
his defence is probable and acceptable, he could have
certainly replied the notice. In the decision reported in 2019
SCC OnLine Kar.2117- V.R.Shresti Vs., Bhaskar.P,
wherein the Hon’ble High court has opined that, if really the
accused had no transaction with the complainant, he
would have given reply to the notice and not replying the
same would go to establish that, the defence made is false
and the court should draw the presumption against the
accused for not replying the legal notice. The decision aptly
applies to the case in hand. Not replying the notice at the
initial stage would hold no water so far the defence case is
concerned and in this background, the case of the
complainant has to be accepted by drawing presumption.
24
C.C.No.4014/2022
21. So, when these facts are taken into consideration,
it indicates that, having the accused not replied the demand
notice, has indirectly admitted the loan transaction. It is
relevant to note that, though the complainant has not
produced any documentary evidence with regard to the
payment of Rs.3 lakh through cash, but the very issuance
of cheque at Ex.P.1 would indicate that, there was a loan
transaction for Rs.6 lakhs. Moreso, the very denial of the
accused with regard to the receipt of Rs.3 lakh through
NEFT, itself also suffices that his intention is to avoid the
liability under the disputed cheque. When, the accused
claims that, he had issued the cheque towards the security
purpose for the loan raised by the said Manju, rather he
issuing a blank cheque, he could have mentioned the
amount in the cheque which would have supported his
defence. But, admittedly having the accused failed to place
25
C.C.No.4014/2022
the probable evidence so as to establish his defence and on
the other hand, having the complainant placing the
disputed cheque with the demand notice and also,
corroborating Ex.D.1, I am of the considered view that, the
complainant has established his financial capacity to
advance Rs.6 lakhs and also, established the loan
transaction of Rs.6 lakhs.
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, also aptly applies to the case in hand.
When the complainant has established the accused having
issued the cheque at Ex.P.1 towards the discharge of loan
liability and their existed a legally enforceable debt, the
26
C.C.No.4014/2022
onus to disprove it, shifts on the accused which is not been
proved by placing positive evidence. In this background,
having the accused not disputed the complainant case by
placing positive evidence, I am of the considered view that,
the cheque issued by the accused at Ex.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. It is need less to say that, documentary evidence
do prevail on the oral evidence. 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. It also
permits the complainant to fill the cheque having
established the Ex.P.1 being issued towards the discharge
27
C.C.No.4014/2022
of loan liability. As said above, the accused has not
disputed the cheque does pertains to him. It could be said
that, the accused has not disputed the cheque in question
and signature found therein. When the drawer has admitted
the issuance of cheque as well as the signature present
therein, the presumption envisaged U/s.118 R/w.139 of
N.I.Act would operate infavour of the complainant. The said
provisions lies on a special rule of evidence applicable to
negotiable instruments. The presumption is one of law and
thereunder the court shall presume that, the instrument
was endorsed for consideration. So also, in the absence of
contrary evidence on behalf of the accused, the presumption
U/s.118 of N.I.Act goes in favour of the complainant. No
doubt, as said statutory presumptions are rebuttable in
nature, but when the complainant has relied upon the
statutory presumptions enshrined U/s.118 R/w.Sec.139 of
28
C.C.No.4014/2022
N.I.Act, it is for the accused to rebut the presumption with
cogent and convincing evidence.
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
was not issued towards the legal liability to the
complainant, but the said fact and the version is not been
established. From the discussion made supra, it could be
said that, the complainant has established his case by
placing positive evidence. On the other hand, the accused
29
C.C.No.4014/2022
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. 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 as per Ex.P.2. Therefore, Point No.1
is answered in the “Affirmative’.
25. 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
30
C.C.No.4014/2022
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 with interest U/s.396 of BNSS
2023, it 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.6,05,000/-. Out of the
compensation of Rs.6,05,000/-, an amount of Rs.6,00,000/-
shall be awarded to the complainant U/s.396 of BNSS 2023.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following
31
C.C.No.4014/2022
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.6,05,000/- (Rupees
Six Lakhs and Five Thousand only).
In default thereof, the accused shall undergo
simple imprisonment for the term of one year.
Acting U/s. 396 of BNSS – 2023 (Old
Correspondence No. 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C), it is
ordered that, Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs
only), there from shall be paid to the complainant
trust 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.
32
C.C.No.4014/2022
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 12h day of August 2025).
Digitally signed
JAI by JAI SHANKAR
SHANKAR J
Date: 2025.08.12
J 13:40:50 +0530
(JAI SHANKAR.J)
XXII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
List of witnesses examined on behalf of complainant:-
PW.1 : Sri. A.N. Ramesha
List of exhibits marked on behalf of complainant:-
Ex.P.1 : Original cheque
Ex.P1(a) : Signature of the accused
Ex.P2 : Bank Memo
Ex.P3 : Legal notice
Ex.P4 : Postal receipt
Ex.P5 : Postal acknowledgment
33
C.C.No.4014/2022
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the accused:-
DW.1 : Sri. Rajanna
List of exhibits marked on behalf of the accused:-
Ex.D.1 : Bank statement
Ex.D.1(a) : Certificate U/s. 65B of Indian
Evidence Act
Digitally signed
JAI by JAI SHANKAR
SHANKAR J
Date: 2025.08.12
J 13:40:45 +0530
(JAI SHANKAR.J)
XXII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bengaluru.
34
C.C.No.4014/2022