[ad_1]
Bangalore District Court
Shankaralingaiah C G vs Shankaregowda on 14 July, 2025
KABC020397472024
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES AND ACJM, BENGALURU CITY.
(SCCH-5)
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
PRESENT: SMT. SHARMILA KAMATH K.
B.A. LLM.,
VIII ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES AND ACJM,
BENGALURU.
C.C No.11381/2024
COMPLAINANT : Sri. Shankaralingaiah C.G.
S/o. Girimallaiah
Aged about 62 years
Residing at No.MF 31/9,
PWD Quarters, 2nd Cross,
SFHS, Nandini Layout,
Bengaluru - 560 096.
(By Sri.Ramkumar D.K. Adv.,)
V/s
ACCUSED : Sri. Shankaregowda
Aged about 59 years
Residing at No.11/1,
Nayandahalli West Layout,
Near Indira Canteen,
Bengaluru - 560 034.
2 CC No.11381/2024
SCCH-5
Also served at
Senior Driver,
Vehicle Branch,
KGID No.1742094,
High Court of Karnataka,
Ambedkar Road,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
(By Sri.R. Hari Prasad, Adv.,)
*****
::JUDGMENT:
:
The complainant filed complaint Under Section 200
of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for the offence
punishable Under section 138 of Negotiable instrument
Act.
2. The factual matrix of complaint is as
under :-
The complainant and accused were known to each
other and complainant lend a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to
accused to meet his urgent needs. The accused towards
partial discharge of outstanding debt issued the cheque
bearing No.008502 drawn on State Bank of India,
3 CC No.11381/2024
SCCH-5Vidhana Soudha Branch, Bengaluru dated 02.04.2024 for
Rs.4,00,000/-. The complainant presented the said
cheque for encashment but the said cheque returned with
an endorsement dated 04.04.2024 as “Exceeds
Arrangement”. On 08.04.2024 the complainant issued
legal notice through RPAD calling upon the accused to
repay the cheque amount. Inspite of service of notice the
accused failed to make payment of cheque amount. Hence
the complaint.
3. After taking cognizance for the offence Under
Section 138 of N.I.Act, sworn statement of the
complainant was recorded. Considering the facts that
there were sufficient materials to proceed against the
accused the process was issued. After issuance of the
summons the accused appeared before the court and
enlarged on Bail.
4 CC No.11381/2024
SCCH-5
4. As per judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Indian Bank Association, the sworn statement is
considered as evidence of complainant and the
documents produced at the time of sworn statement
considered as documents on behalf of complainant.
Subsequently the statement of the accused has been duly
recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. Accused had denied entire incriminating
evidence and he submits that, he has defence evidence.
5. The complainant in order to prove his case
examined himself as PW-1 and got marked documents as
per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9(a). Statement of accused recorded.
6. Heard arguments.
7. The following points arise for determination;
::POINTS::
1. Whether the complainant proves
beyond reasonable doubt that, accused
5 CC No.11381/2024
SCCH-5towards repayment of loan amount
had issued a cheque bearing
No.008502 dated 02.04.2024 for
Rs.4,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of
India, Vidhanasoudha Branch,
Bengaluru in favour of complainant
and the complainant has presented the
said cheque through its banker for
encashment but the same has been
returned on 04.04.2024 with an
endorsement “Exceeds Arrangement”
thereafter on 08.04.2024 got issued
legal notice to the accused calling
upon him to repay the cheque amount,
inspite of service of the said notice,
the accused not repaid the cheque
amount and thereby committed an
offence punishable under Sec.138 of
N.I.Act?
2. What Order?
8. My findings on the aforesaid points are;
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative
Point No.2 : As per final order for the
following:
::REASONS::
9. Point No.1:- It is the case of the complainant,
The accused towards discharge of debt issued the cheque
6 CC No.11381/2024
SCCH-5
bearing No.008502 drawn on SBI, Vidhana Soudha
Branch dated 02.04.2024 for Rs.4,00,000/-. The
complainant presented the said cheque for encashment
but the said cheque returned with an endorsement dated
04.04.2024 as “Exceeds Arrangement”. On 08.04.2024
the complainant issued legal notice through RPAD calling
upon the accused to repay the cheque amount. Inspite of
service of notice the accused failed to make payment of
cheque amount.
10. The complainant has to establish the
ingredients for making out the case under Section 138 of
N.I. Act. The complainant has to establish that :
Person issued a cheque on an account
maintained by him in a bank for payment of
service of amount and money to another person
from out of that account for the discharge of any
debt or liability.
That the cheque has been presented to the
bank within a period of three months from the date
of which it is drawn or within the period of its
validity whichever is earlier.
7 CC No.11381/2024
SCCH-5
That the cheque is returned by the bank
unpaid either because the amount of money has
been in credit of the account is insufficient to
hand the cheque or that it exceeds amount
arranged to be paid from that account by
agreement made with the bank.
The payee, the holder in due course of the
cheque makes demand for the payment of the
said amount of money by giving notice in writing
to drawer of the cheque within 30 days of the
receipts of information by him from the accused
regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid.
The drawer of the said cheque fails to make
payment of the said amount of money to the
payee or holder in due course of the cheque
within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice.
The said ingredients are to be established by thecomplainant. In the light of the above discussions the oral
as well as documentary evidence placed on record by the
parties has to be considered.
11. The complainant in order to prove his case
examined himself as PW-1 and documents Ex.P.1 to
Ex.P.9(a) got marked. In order to prove the case of the
complainant, the complainant produced and got marked
8 CC No.11381/2024
SCCH-5
Ex.P.1 cheque, Ex.P.2 bank endorsement, Ex.P.3 office
copy of notice, Ex.P.4 and 5 are postal receipts, Ex.P.6
and 7 are postal acknowledgments, Ex.P.8 bank
statement, Ex.P.9 is reply notice, and Ex.P.9(a) is
envelope cover.
12. The accused not disputed the issuance of
cheque, but contended that, cheque in question was given
by accused for security purpose for an amount of
Rs.4,00,000/-. It is now settled proposition of law that,
cheque issued for security purpose also comes within the
ambit of Sec.138 of N.I.Act. It is not in dispute that the
accused obtained loan from the complainant. The accused
sent a reply as per Ex.P.9 that he replied that he only
taken loan of Rs.1,50,000/- not Rs.4,00,000/-. The
cheque as per Ex.P.2 was issued on 02.04.2024 for
Rs.4,00,000/- towards payment of loan amount. None of
the documents produced by the accused regarding
9 CC No.11381/2024
SCCH-5
repayment of loan amount obtained from the
complainant nor lead evidence to prove his contention.
The issuance of cheque as per Ex.P.2 on 02.04.2024 for
Rs.4,00,000/- was not rebutted by the accused. The
complainant proved that Ex.P.2 cheque was issued
towards legally recoverable debt. Regarding presentation
of cheque for encashment, endorsement issued by bank
as per Ex.P.3 regarding insufficiency of funds, issuance of
notice is not disputed by the accused nor produced any
document to disprove the said facts. The complainant
proved ingredients of Section 138 of NI Act.
13. Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has
been enacted to lend credibility to the financial
transactions. The explanation appended to the Section
provides that, the “debt or other liability” for the purpose
of this Section means a legally enforceable debt or other
liability.
10 CC No.11381/2024
SCCH-5
14. Apart from this, Sec. 139 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act lays down a presumption in favour of the
holder of cheque in the following terms:-
“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, of any debt or
other liability”.
Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act states,
“Until the contrary is proved, the following
presumptions shall be made:-
(a) 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.” Thus, the Act clearly lays
down presumptions in favour of the
Complainant with regard to the issuance
of the cheque by the Accused
towards the discharge of his liability
in favour of the Complainant. Under the
scheme of the Act, the onus
is upon the Accused to rebut the
11 CC No.11381/2024
SCCH-5presumptions in favour of the
Complainant by raising a probable
defence. It is a well settled position of
law that, the defence of the Accused, if in
the nature of a mere denial of the case of
the Complainant will not be sufficient to
hold it as a probable defense. The bare
denial of the passing of consideration
apparently does not appear to be any
defence. Something which is probable
must be brought on record for getting
the benefit of shifting the onus of proof
to the Complainant.
15. It is also a well settled position of law that,
once the cheque is proved to be relating to the Account of
the Accused and she accepts and admits the signature on
the said cheque, then the initial presumption as
contemplated under Sec.139 of the N.I.Act has to be
raised by the courts in favour of the Complainant. The
presumption referred to in Sec.139 of the N.I.Act is a
mandatory presumption and not a general presumption,
but the Accused is entitled to rebut the said presumption.
What is required to be established by the Accused in
12 CC No.11381/2024
SCCH-5
order to rebut the presumption is different from each case
under given circumstance. But the fact remains that a
mere plausible explanation is not expected from the
Accused and it must be more than a plausible
explanation by way of rebuttal evidence. The defence
raised by the Accused by way of rebuttal evidence must
be probable and capable of being accepted by the court.
The Complainant has fulfilled the mandatory
requirements of Sec. 138 of the N.I.Act. Hence I answer
point No.1 in the Affirmative.
16. Point No.2:- In view of my findings on the
above point I proceed to pass the following:
::ORDER::
In exercises of the powers conferred
U/Section.255 (2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is
convicted for the offence punishable
U/Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act.
13 CC No.11381/2024
SCCH-5
The accused sentenced to pay fine
amount of Rs.4,05,000/- (Rupees Four
Lakhs Five Thousand only) in default
accused shall under go simple
imprisonment for 6 months.
Acting under Section 357 (1)(b) of
Cr.P.C out of fine amount, the complainant
is entitle for Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four
Lakhs Only) cheque amount as
compensation.
Acting under Section 357 (1)(a) of
Cr.P.C the balance amount Rs.5,000/-
(Five thousand only) is defrayed to the
state for the expenses incurred in the
prosecution.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by her,
thereof is corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court
on this the 14th day of July, 2025)(SHARMILA KAMATH K.)
VIII ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES & ACJM
BENGALURU.
14 CC No.11381/2024
SCCH-5
::A N N E X U R E::
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE
COMPLAINANT:
PW-1 : Sri. Shankaralingaiah C.G.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE
COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P.1 : Original Cheque dated 02.04.2024
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of accused
Ex.P.2 : Bank Endorsement dated 04.04.2024
Ex.P.3 : Copy of Legal Notice dated 08.04.2024
Ex.P.4 and : Postal Receipts (2 in Nos.)
Ex.P.5
Ex.P.6 and : Postal Acknowledgments (2 in Nos.)
Ex.P.7
Ex.P.8 : Copy of Bank Statement
Ex.P.9 and : Reply Notice and Envelope
Ex.P.9(a)LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE
ACCUSED:
-NIL-
LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF
THE ACCUSED:
-NIL-
(SHARMILA KAMATH K.)
VIII ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES & ACJM
BENGALURU.
[ad_2]
Source link