Bangalore District Court
Sri A V Manjanna vs Mr Arjun V on 23 May, 2025
KABC030699352022
IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
:: PRESENT ::
SMT. PAVITHRA R, B.A.L, L.L.B.,
XIII ACJM, Bengaluru City.
C.C. NO. 27855/2022
Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2025
COMPLAINANT: Sri. A.V. Manjanna,
S/o late S. Venkataramaiah,
Aged about 57 years,
R/a No.98, SMS layout,
20th Cross, 19th Main,
J.P. Nagar, 5th Phase,
Bengaluru - 560 078.
[By Sri. D. Guna Shekar, Advocate]
V/S
ACCUSED: Sri. Mr. Arjun. V.
S/o late Vardaraj,
Aged about 33 years,
R/a. No.436, 7th Main,
ITI Layout, Hosapalya,
Bengaluru - 560 068.
And also at:
Running Garage at
Calmec Car Station,
C/o Sandeep Kumar. M.
-2- C.C.No.27855/2022
Site No.2, Bettadasapura village,
Jelly Machine Circle,
Bengaluru South - 560 100.
(By Sri. Ravi. A.M. Advocate)
Offence complained of : U/s. 138 of N.I. Act.,
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Accused is Convicted.
Date of order : 23.05.2025
JUDGMENT
This is a private complaint filed by the complainant
under Sec.200 of Cr.P.C., against the accused for the
offence punishable under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument
Act, 1881 (in short referred to as N.I. Act).
The sum and substance of the case are hereunder:-
2. It is the case of the complainant that, the accused
is running Garage as such complainant is the customer to
the accused through one Mr. R. Lokesh who is common
friend to both the accused and complainant. During the
month of January 2021 accused approached the
complainant and requested for financial assistance for
-3- C.C.No.27855/2022
renovation and development of his garage and to discharge
other legal liabilities. As per the request of the accused, the
complainant agreed to provide financial assistance of
Rs.12,00,000/-. As such the complainant paid said amount
of Rs.12,00,000/- on 08.02.2021 by way of cash to the
accused. Thus the accused borrowed the said loan amount
of Rs.12,00,000/- from the complainant and accused
assured the complainant that he will repay the said loan
amount within sixteen months. In this regard accused
executed Receipt of Payment of Hand loan dated 08.02.2021
in the presence of witnesses mentioned in payment receipt
and the accused issued cheque bearing No.500854 dated
13.06.2022 drawn on State Bank of India, South End Circle
Branch, Bengaluru in favour of the complainant. After
completion of sixteen months, when the complainant along
with well wisher Mr. R. Lokesh approached the accused in
the month of June 2022, in his garage office, the accused
promised and assured the complainant to present the said
cheque and he will arrange the funds and instructed to
-4- C.C.No.27855/2022
deposit in the complainant Banker. As per assurance of the
accused, the complainant presented the said cheque
through his Banker Karnataka Bank Ltd., City Civil Court
Branch, Bengaluru, but the same came to be returned
dishonored with an endorsement dated 15.06.2022 for the
reasons “Insufficient Funds”. Thereafter, complainant got
issued legal notice on 01.07.2022 through RPAD to the
accused residential and car garage address. The notice sent
to residential address is returned with an postal
endorsement ‘Insufficient address’ and the notice sent to
said garage address is duly served on the accused on
12.07.2022 with an endorsement ‘Unclaimed by accused
returned to sender’. In spite of issuance of legal notice, the
accused failed to repay the cheque amount and thus
committed the offence punishable u/s.138 of NI Act. Hence,
this complaint.
3. On filing of this complaint, this court recorded
the sworn statement of the complainant and took
-5- C.C.No.27855/2022
cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the
accused. On 09.12.2022 Sri. R.A.M., advocate has filed
vakalath for accused and the matter was posted for bail and
recording of Plea on 20.12.2022. Accused availed bail on
20.12.2022 and Plea was recorded on the same day and
matter was posted for cross-examination of PW1 on
13.02.2023. Thereafter accused remained absent till
19.06.2023. On 19.06.2023 recording his absence NBW
was issued against him. Since then accused remained
absent and he was not secured under NBW and an order
was passed by this court dispensing statement of accused
u/s.313 of Cr.P.C vide order dated 21.05.2025. Matter was
heard from the complainant’s side and it was posted for
judgment on the same day. In spite of having knowledge of
the proceedings and though accused availed bail he has
remained absent and caused delay in disposal of this case.
4. Heard the counsel for complainant. Perused the
averments made in complaint, oral and documentary
-6- C.C.No.27855/2022
evidence of the complainant and after hearing arguments,
the points that arises for determination are:-
1) Whether the complainant has proved that
he lent a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- to the
accused, in discharge of the said legal
liability Ex.P.1 for sum of Rs.12,00,000/-
was issued and the same was dishonored.
Even after issuance of notice, the accused
has failed to pay the cheque amount and
thereby he is guilty of the offence
punishable under Sec.138 of N.I. Act?
2) What order?
5. Findings to the above points are as under:-
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative
Point No.2: As per final order for the
following:
REASONS
6. Point No.1:- According to the complaint
averments of the complainant, the accused is running
Garage as such complainant is the customer to the accused
through one Mr. R.Lokesh who is common friend to both the
accused and complainant. During the month of January
2021 accused approached the complainant and requested
-7- C.C.No.27855/2022
for financial assistance for renovation and development of
his garage and to discharge other legal liabilities. As per the
request of the accused, the complainant agreed and paid
said amount of Rs.12,00,000/- on 08.02.2021 by way of
cash to the accused. In this regard accused executed
Receipt of Payment of Hand loan dated 08.02.2021 in the
presence of witnesses and issued Ex.P.1 cheque to
discharge his liability, but the said cheque was dishonored
and the accused did not repay the amount even after
issuance of legal notice.
7. In order to prove the complainant’s case he got
examined as PW1 by filing an affidavit and got marked 5
documents at the time of his chief examination as follows…
(i) Ex.P.1 is the cheque of State Bank of
India, South End Circle Branch bearing
No.500854 dated 13.06.2022 for sum of
Rs.12,00,000/- alleged to have been issued by the
accused. Signature of the accused is marked
through complainant as Ex.P1(a).
(ii) Ex.P2 is the Bank Endorsement dated
14.06.2022 issued by Karnataka Bank Ltd.,
Bengaluru stating that ‘Funds Insufficient’.
-8- C.C.No.27855/2022
(iii) Ex.P3 is the legal notice dated
01.07.2022 issued by the complainant through
his advocate to the accused demanding the
payment of cheque amount.
(iv) Ex.P.4 & 5 are the postal receipts for
having sent the legal notice to accused.
(v) Ex.P.6 & 7 are the unserved postal
covers.
(vi) Ex.P.8 is the hand loan payment receipt
dated 08.02.2021. Signature of the accused is
marked as Ex.P.8(a).
(vii) Ex.P.9 is the Pay-in-slip of Karnataka
Bank Ltd.
8. In the chief-examination of P.W.1, he has
reiterated entire averments of the complaint and supported
his version. The accused neither cross examined the PW.1
nor taken any defense to disbelieve the complainant’s case.
9. From the overall evaluation of oral and
documentary evidence of the complainant it is not in
dispute that the complainant and accused are well
acquainted to each other. Ex.P.1 belongs to the accused
and it was issued to the complainant subsequent to the
-9- C.C.No.27855/2022
receipt of hand loan of Rs.12,00,000/-. These points are
sufficient to raise presumption available under Sec.118 and
139 of N.I. Act. That the accused has not taken any defense
either denying his signature or issuance of cheque.
10. Since the cheque belongs to the accused and also
for the reason that the same was personally issued to the
complainant by the accused on his behalf, the complainant
is benefited to raise presumption under Sec.118 and 139 of
N.I. Act. Thus until and unless the contrary is proved it is
presumed that the cheque Ex.P.1 is issued for the purpose
of legally recoverable debt or liability.
11. Now the burden shifts on the accused to rebut
the presumption under Sec.118 and 139 of N.I Act from the
defense points either by giving a standard proof or by
establishing the same under the principles of
preponderance of probabilities. As discussed above the
accused have failed to take any defense in this case either
by cross examining the PW.1 or by leading defense evidence.
– 10 – C.C.No.27855/2022
12. It is settled position of law that after raising
presumption under Sec.118 and 139 of N.I Act, the burden
shifts on the accused to rebut the said presumption by
establishing his defense under the principles of
preponderance of probabilities in the present case. There is
no cogent evidence by the accused, mere denying the
complainant’s case in a statement recorded under section
313 of Cr.P.C does not weakens the complainant’s case and
the same is insufficient to rebut the presumption. The said
aspect is discussed in detail in a decision rendered by
Hon’ble High court of Karnataka in “Sripad Vs. Ramadas M.
Shet, in Cri. Appl. No. 2689/2009 as hereunder:
“Mere a distorted version or mere
taking up the plea or the defence that he
is not liable to pay any amount or he
discharged the amount are not sufficient
to put back the burden on to the
complainant .”
13. Thus, the above ratio is aptly applicable to the
facts of the case. The accused has failed to establish his
defense points by means of tendering related witnesses and
– 11 – C.C.No.27855/2022
documentary proof as discussed supra. Thus for all these
reasons this court finds that the accused to discharge his
liability towards payment of hand loan amount of
Rs.12,00,000/- issued the Ex.P1 cheque without having
sufficient funds intentionally and failed to repay the cheque
amount even after issuance of notice since the said cheque
was dishonored. That the accused has utterly failed to
establish preponderance of probabilities by disclosing its
defence and further failed to rebut the initial presumption
under section 118 and 139 of N.I. Act. Therefore, in the light
of above discussion, the Court answer point No.1 in the
Affirmative.
14. Point No. 2:- Decisions in Crl.R.P. No.664/2020
of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Sunil Yadav Vs. Smt.
Y.C.Manju dated 07.02.2025, rendered by the Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka, is already discussed by this Court in
order dated 21.05.2025 regarding dispensation of statement
under section 313 of Cr.P.C. In view of the above decision
and considering the facts and circumstances of the case this
court has proceeded to pass judgment. In view of the
– 12 – C.C.No.27855/2022
reasons stated and discussed above the complainant has
proved the guilt of the accused punishable under Sec.138 of
N.I. Act. It is necessary to note that the said offence is of
Civil wrong. Hence it is just and necessary to award
sentence of fine instead of sentence of imprisonment.
Complainant had filed an IA for interim compensation, no
separate order is required on said IA since judgment is
passed. Considering all these aspects this court proceed to
pass the following:-
ORDER
Acting under Sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C
accused is hereby convicted for the offence
under Sec.138 of N.I Act and sentenced to pay
of Rs.12,10,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Ten
Thousand only), in default of payment of fine
amount accused shall undergo simple
imprisonment for 6 months.
Further, acting under Sec.357(1)(b) of
Cr.P.C. it is ordered that Rs.12,00,000/-
(Rupees Twelve Lakhs only) shall be paid to
the complainant as a compensation,
remaining fine amount of Rs.10,000/-
– 13 – C.C.No.27855/2022
(Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the State for
the expenses incurred in the prosecution.
The bail bond of the accused stands
canceled after expiry of the appeal period.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, revised,
corrected, signed and then pronounced in the open court on this the 23 rd
day of May, 2025)(PAVITHRA R.)
XIII ACJM, BENGALURU CITY.
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR COMPLAINANT:
PW-1 Sri. A.V. Manjanna
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR ACCUSED:
– NIL –
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P1 : Original Cheque
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of the accused
Ex.P.2 : Bank endorsement
Ex.P.3 : Copy of Legal Notice
Ex.P.4 & 5 : Postal receipts
Ex.P.6 & 7 : Unserved Postal covers
Ex.P.8 : Hand loan payment receipt dated
08.02.2021
- 14 - C.C.No.27855/2022
Ex.P.8(a) : Signature of accused
Ex.P.9 : Pay-in-slip of Karnataka Bank
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR ACCUSED:
-NIL-
XIII ACJM, BENGALURU CITY.