Bangalore District Court
Srinivas H P vs Mohammed Jamshi on 23 June, 2025
KABC0C0171122022
IN THE COURT OF XXXIV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU (ACJM-34)
PRESENT: Smt.PARVEEN A BANKAPUR,B.Com.LLB.
XXXIV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
Dated: This the 23rd day of June, 2025.
C.C.No.55062/2022
COMPLAINANT : Mr. Srinivas H.P.
S/o. Sri Pillappa,
Aged about 30 years,
R/at No.366, Hoodi Village,
Bengaluru - 560 048.
(By Mr. Thejesh P. - Advocate)
V/s
ACCUSED : Mr. Mohammed Jamshi,
S/o. Mohammed Abbas,
Aged 34 years
Kaveri Nagar,
R/at Near New Burrial Ground,
Mahadevapura,
Bengaluru - 48.
(By Mr.Krishna Mohana Reddy C -
Advocate)
1 Date of Commencement 30.04.2022
of offence
2 Date of report of offence 04.07.2022
3 Presence of accused
3a. Before the Court 16.05.2023
3b. Released on bail 16.05.2023
4 Name of the Complainant Mr. Srinivas H.P.
5 Date of recording of 15.07.2022
evidence
6 Date of closure of evidence 10.12.2024
7 Offences alleged U/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act
8 Opinion of Judge Accused is found guilty
2 C.C.No.55062/2022
JUDGEMENT
The Private Complaint filed by the Complainant under
Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the accused alleging that he has
committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:
The complainant submits that, taking advantage of the
acquaintance he had with the Complainant, the Accused has
availed credit facilities of Rs.8 lakhs on various intervals in the
year 2015 from him, for improvement of his two-wheeler
mechanic service centre and also to meet his family needs and
assured to pay on demand.
It is further submitted by the Complainant that when he
insisted for repayment of the amount borrowed, the Accused
paid Rs.50,000/- by way of two online payments i.e.,
Rs.45,000/- on 28.1.2021 and Rs.5,000/- on 8.2.2021 and
assured to pay the balance amount of Rs.7.5 lakhs.
It is further submitted that towards the discharge of
partial liability, the Accused issued a Cheque bearing
No.300822 dtd.30.04.2022 for Rs.3,00,000/- drawn on
Karnataka Bank, K.R.Puram branch, Bengaluru towards partial
3 C.C.No.55062/2022discharge of said handloan with an assurance that the same
would be honoured on its presentation for encashment.
It is further submitted by the Complainant that as
believing the promise and assurance of the Accused, he
presented the Cheque for encashment through his banker i.e.,
Karnataka State Co-op. Apex Bank Ltd., Mahadevapura branch
on 7.5.2022 and the said Cheque was returned dishonoured
with reason “funds insufficient” on 9.5.2022. Inspite of due
notice the Accused has not repaid the cheque amount. Hence,
the Complainant has filed the present complaint against the
Accused for the offence punishable u/Sec.138 of N.I. Act.
3. Based on the complaint, the sworn statement affidavit,
and documents etc., took cognizance of an offence punishable
Under Section 138 of N.I. Act by following the guidelines of
Apex Court issued in Indian Bank Association case and ordered
to be registered a criminal case against the accused for the
offence punishable Under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
4. After issuance of summons, accused appeared before
the court and enlarged himself on bail. Plea was recorded, read
over and explained to the accused, who pleads not guilty and
4 C.C.No.55062/2022
claims to be tried. Hence, the case is posted for complainant’s
evidence.
5. The Complainant got examined himself as PW-1 and
got marked documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6.
6. Accused was examined U/S 313 of Cr.P.C.
Incriminating evidence appearing in the complainant’s evidence
was read over and explained to the accused who denies the
same. The Accused got examined himself as DW1 and got
marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D3 documents from his end. He also got
examined one more witness from from his end as DW2 and
closed his side.
7. Heard both counsels at length in great detail. In
addition to the oral arguments, the learned counsel for Accused
has filed the written arguments.
The learned counsel for Accused has placed the following
citations;
1. RBI Circular dtd.25.7.2011
2. 2014(3) MRHT 485; 2014(2) MPLJ (Cri) 132
3. 2015 (1) SCC 99
4. 2013 (3) SCC 86
5 C.C.No.55062/2022
5. 1997 (2) Crimes (HC) 658
6. 2008 (4) SCC 54
7. 2009 (2) SCC 513
The learned counsel for Complainant has placed the
following citations;
1. Cri. Apl.No.1020 of 2010/2010 (11) SCC 441
2. Cri. Apl.No.123 of 2021/2021 (5) SCC 283
3. Cri. Apl.No.664 of 2012/2019 (9) SCC 606
4. 2001(6) SCC 16
8. Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the
materials placed on record, the following points arise for my
consideration.
1) Whether complainant proves beyond all
reasonable doubts that accused in discharge of
legally recoverable debt, has issued a Cheque
No.300822 dtd.30.04.2022 for Rs.3,00,000/-
drawn on Karnataka Bank, K.R.Puram branch,
Bengaluru in favour of the complainant which
came to be dishonoured with an endorsement
“funds insufficient” and in spite of receipt of
notice accused has not paid the Cheque
amount and thereby committed an offence
under Section 138 of N.I.Act?
2) What Order?
9. My findings on the above points is:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative
6 C.C.No.55062/2022Point No.2: As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
Point No.1:-
10. Existence of legally recoverable debt is a sine qua non
for prosecuting the case under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act. For convenient purpose the essential
ingredients to constitute offence under section 138 of N.I.Act is
summarized as below:
(i) That there must be a legally enforceable debt.
(ii) That the cheque was drawn from the account of
bank for discharge in whole or in part of any debt
or other liability which presupposes the legally
enforceable debt.
(iii)That the cheque so issued had been returned due to
“insufficient funds”.
11. It is the core contention of the complainant that,
taking advantage of the acquaintance he had with the
Complainant, the Accused has availed credit facilities of
Rs.8 lakhs on various intervals in the year 2015 from him, for
improvement of his two-wheeler mechanic service centre and
also to meet his family needs and assured to pay on demand.
When the Complainant that when he insisted for repayment of
the amount borrowed, the Accused paid Rs.50,000/- by way of
7 C.C.No.55062/2022
two online payments i.e., Rs.45,000/- on 28.1.2021 and
Rs.5,000/- on 8.2.2021 and assured to pay the balance amount
of Rs.7.5 lakhs. Towards the discharge of partial liability, the
Accused issued a Cheque bearing No.300822 dtd.30.04.2022
for Rs.3,00,000/- drawn on Karnataka Bank, K.R.Puram
branch, Bengaluru towards partial discharge of said handloan
with an assurance that the same would be honoured on its
presentation for encashment, which was returned dishonoured
with reason “funds insufficient” on 9.5.2022. Inspite of due
notice the Accused has not repaid the cheque amount. Hence,
the Complainant has filed the present complaint against the
Accused for the offence punishable u/Sec.138 of N.I. Act.
12. In order to bring home the guilt of the Accused, L.R.
of the Complainant, examined himself as PW2 and reiterated
the contents of complaint in his examination-in-chief. He has
also placed the original Cheque bearing No.300822
dtd.30.04.2022 at Ex.P.1, bank challan at Ex.P2, bank
endorsement at Ex.P3, Ex.P4 is the office copy of legal notice
issued by the Complainant to the Accused on 26.5.2022, Ex.P5
is the postal receipt and Ex.P6 is the postal acknowledgement.
8 C.C.No.55062/2022
13. The documents produced by the complainant of
course established that complainant meets out the procedural
requirements of Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, but
it is to be considered whether all these documents establish the
offence committed by the accused.
14. The Negotiable Instruments Act raises two
presumptions. One contained in Section 118 and the other in
Sec. 139 thereof. For the sake of convenience Sec 118(1) of the
N.I. Act is extracted here below:
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 made or drawn for consideration, and
that every such instrument, when it has been
accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was
accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for
consideration.
1. To (g) . . . . . . . . . . . .
Provided that where the instrument has been
obtained from its lawful owner, or from an person in
lawful custody thereof, by means of an offence of fraud,
or has been obtained from the maker or acceptor
thereof by means of an offence of fraud, or for unlawful
9 C.C.No.55062/2022
consideration, the burden of proving that the holder is
a holder in due course lies upon him”.
15. Further Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
reads as under:
“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.”
Scope and ambit and function of the presumption
U/s 118(a) and Sec 139 of NI Act came to be considered
by the Hon’ble Apex Court of Indian in Krishna
Janardhan Bhat Vs Dattatraya G.Hegde (2008
AIAR (Criminal 151) The Supreme Court has laid
down the law in the following phraseology.
“D Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, Secs 139,
138–Presumption under-same arises in regard to
second aspect of the matter provided under Sec 138–
Existence of legally enforceable debt is not a matter of
presumption under Sec 139- It merely raises
presumption in favour of a holder of the cheque that
the same has been issued for discharge of any debt or
other liability – Merely an application of presumption
contemplated under Section 139 of N.I.Act should not
lead to injustice or mistaken conviction.”
10 C.C.No.55062/2022
16. Further, said decision was followed by Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka in Kempanarasimhaiah Vs P.Rangaraju
& Others (2008 (5) KCCR 3371). Relevant paragraph of the
said judgment reads as under: –
“12. As to the provisions of Sections 138 of N.I.Act, the
following principles emerge from the above
observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court at para Nos
21, 23, 25, 26 and 34 of its Judgment in the above
said case of Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs
Dattatraya G.Hegde, AIR 2008 SC 1325.
(i) Section 139 of the Act merely raises a presumption
that the cheque was issued towards discharge in whole
or in part in any debt or other liability, which
presupposed legally enforceable debt. Existence of
legally recoverable debt is not a matter of presumption
under Section 139 of the Act. It merely raises a
presumption in favour of a holder of the cheque that
the same has been issued for discharge of any debt or
other liability.” (para 21)
(ii) The question as to whether the presumption stood
rebutted or not, must be determined keeping in view
the other evidences on record. Where the chances of
false implication cannot be ruled out, the background
fact and the conduct of the parties together with their
legal requirements are required to be taken into
consideration. (para 26)
(iii) An accused, for discharging the burden of proof placed
upon him under a statute, need not examine himself.
He may discharge his burden on the basis of the
materials already brought on records (para 23)
(iv) Standard of proof on the part of an accused and that of
the prosecution in a criminal case is different. Further
more where as prosecution must prove the guilt of an
11 C.C.No.55062/2022
accused beyond all reasonable doubt, the standard of
proof so as to prove a defence on the part of an
accused is “preponderance of probabilities'” ( para 23
& 25)
(v) Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be
drawn not only from the materials brought on records
by the parties but also by reference to the
circumstances upon which he relies ( para 25)
(vi) Other important principles of legal jurisprudence,
namely presumption of innocence as human rights
and the doctrine of reverse burden introduced by
Section 139 should be deliberately balanced (para 34)
17. Thus from the observations extracted above, it is clear
that presumption Under Section 139 of the N.I,.Act is only to
the extent that the cheque was drawn for discharge in full or in
part of any debt or other liability and the said presumption do
not relate to the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability.
Therefore, before drawing the presumption under section 139 of
the N.I.Act, it is the duty of the Court to see whether or not the
complainant has discharged his initial burden as to existence of
legally enforceable debt. No doubt, as per Section 118(a) of the
Act, there is a rebuttable presumption that every negotiable
instrument, is accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred
was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for
consideration.”
12 C.C.No.55062/2022
18. Factual matrix of the case is required to be tested on
the anvil of principles emerging from the above-referred
decisions.
19. The defence taken by the Accused is that, the cheque
issued for the purpose of security was misused by the
Complainant by filling the cheque as per his will and wish
himself and filed false complaint against him.
20. In order to substantiate the claim, the Complainant
examined himself as PW1 and he deposed that, he know the
Accused from several years and taking advantage of said
acquaintance, Accused has availed credit facility of Rs.8 lakhs
on various intervals in the year 2015 for improvement of his
two -wheeler mechanic service centre and his family needs. It is
further deposed that, he assured to repay said loan amount on
demand. It is further submitted that, for repayment of said
loan, Accused had paid Rs.50,000/- by way of online payment
i.e., on 28.1.2021 Rs.45,000/- and Rs.5,000/- on 8.2.2021 and
assured that, he will pay remaining balance of Rs.7.5 lakhs. It
is further submitted that, thereafter the Accused has issued
Ex.P1 cheque for Rs.3 lakhs as a discharge of partial liability
and assured that, he will maintain the sufficient balance in his
13 C.C.No.55062/2022
account to honour the cheque. It is further deposed that, as
per the instructions of the Accused he presented the cheque
which was dishonoured as per Ex.P3 and thereafter, he issued
legal notice to the Accused on 28.5.2022 through RPAD as per
Ex.P4 and same is duly served upon the Accused on 3.6.2022
as per Ex.P6. It is further deposed that inspite of due service of
notice to the Accused, he failed to pay the cheque amount.
21. Considering the oral and documentary evidence
placed by the Complainant, prima facie presumed that, Ex.P1
cheque was issued by the Accused towards legally enforceable
debt and liability. To rebut the presumption the learned
counsel for Accused cross-examined the PW1 in full length.
22. In the cross-examination PW1 stated that in the year
2015 he was working in L & T and having annual income of
Rs.10 to 15 lakhs. He further stated that in the year 2015 he
was income tax assessee. He further stated that he know the
Accused since from 10 years and Accused is his friend and
Accused running two-wheeler garrage. He further stated that
he was paid Rs.8 lakhs to the Accused. He further stated that
in the year 2015 Accused approached him for Rs.8 lakhs for the
14 C.C.No.55062/2022
purpose of commencement of garrage service. He further stated
that the Accused was not executed any documents but, he
further stated that, blank bond paper and blank cheques were
with him. He denied that, in the year 2015 the Accused
borrowed loan of Rs.3 lakhs from him and at that time, the
Accused issued Ex.P1 cheque for the purpose of security He
further denied that, Accused was returned Rs.50,000/- in the
year 2017 and Rs.1 lakh in the year 2018 and Rs.45,000/- on
28.1.2021 and Rs.5,000/- on 8.2.2021 and Rs. 50,000/- in the
month of April 2022. He further denied that on the last
payment on April 2022 the Accused insisted to return the
cheque. He further denied that the Accused was replied to the
notice. He further denied that after returning of Rs.3 lakhs
amount to him, he not returned the cheque and misused the
same by filing of false complaint against the Accused.
23. To rebut the presumption, the Accused examined
himself as DW1. He deposed that, he know the Complainant
from several years and due to that acquaintance, he
approached the Complainant for credit facility of Rs.3 lakhs
and availed the same and paid interest @ 3% per month. It is
further deposed that, said loan was borrowed by him for
15 C.C.No.55062/2022
improvement of his two-wheeler mechanic service centre and to
meet family necessities. It is further deposed that at the time of
availing the loan, he had given cheque bearing No.300822 for
the security purpose and he also paid interest @ 3% per month
regularly till clear of the loan amount till April 2022. It is
further submits that in the year 2017 he had paid part loan
amount of Rs.1 lakh by way of cash in two parts in the
presence of common friend and thereafter balance amount of
Rs.2 lakhs will paid as per the mutual understanding. He
further deposed that, in the year 2018 as per his well wisher’s
suggestion he arranged Rs.1 lakh amount and paid it to the
Complainant by cash and only Rs.1 lakh amount was balance
and due to Covid-19 situation further he paid Rs.45,000/- on
28.1.2021 and Rs.5000/- on 8.2.2021. Accordingly, he paid
Rs.2,50,000/-. It is further deposed that, in last week of April
2022 he paid Rs.50,000/- in cash in the presence of common
friends and requested the Complainant to return the cheques.
It is further deposed that, the Complainant after receipt of
Rs.50,000/- went inside the house for bring the cheque and
came back after 10 minutes and informed that, cheque was
misplaced and unable to find immediately and will search once
16 C.C.No.55062/2022
again and it once traced out, he will immediately inform him. It
is further deposed that, he shocked and surprised by receiving
the notice from Complainant mentioning the baseless
allegations and he immediately called the Complainant but, the
Complainant never reacted to the call. It is further deposed
that, he is an innocent and not committed alleged offence.
24. In the cross-examination the DW1 stated that he
know the Complainant since from 2015 and he borrowed Rs.3
lakhs from the Complainant on interest @ 3% in the year 2015.
He denied hat he received Rs.8 lakhs from the Complainant. He
admits signature on Ex.P1 cheque which marked at Ex.P1(a).
He denied that he returned only Rs.50,000/- and remaining
balance is to be paid at Rs.7.5 lakhs to the Complainant. He
further stated that, for return of Rs.1 lakh in the Complainant,
he was not produced any document and also not produced
document to show that he paid Rs.1 lakh in the year 2018 and
also not produced document to show that in the year 2022 he
paid Rs.50 lakhs in the house of Complainant. He further
stated that he was not issued any notice to the Complainant for
take back his cheques and stamp papers. He denied that, for
balance amount, he issued Ex.P1 cheque to the Complainant .
17 C.C.No.55062/2022
During the course of examination the Accused produced reply
notice at Ex.D2 and also produced postal acknowledgement to
show that, the said notice was duly served upon the
Complainant as per Ex.D3.
25. In support of Accused, DW2 was examined. He
deposed that, Accused is his relative and in the year 2017 April
he along with Complainant went to the hose of the Complainant
for returning of Rs.50,000/-. He further deposed that on the
day the Complainant told them to return of Rs.2 lakhs. He
further deposed that thereafter, Complainant and himself were
seek further time for returning of amount. In the cross-
examination he stated that he does not know about Rs.8 lakhs
transaction. He only stated that, Rs.50,000/- amount was paid
by the Accused to the Complainant in his house.
26. Considering the oral and documentary documents
placed by both parties, it is clear that the Ex.P1 cheque was
issued by the Accused to the Complainant and also Accused
admit his signature on the Ex.P1. It is further clear that there is
a transaction between Complainant and Accused in the year
2015. The only contention of the Accused is that he borrowed
18 C.C.No.55062/2022
Rs.3 lakhs from the Complainant and on that day he issued
cheque to the Complainant for the security purpose. On the
other hand, the contention of the Complainant that, he lent
Rs.8 lakhs to the Accused and out of Rs.8 lakhs the Accused
returned only Rs.50,000/- through online transfer to him and
out of remaining balance amount, he issued Ex.P1 cheque for
the partial payment of balance amount. It is admitted by both
parties that, on 28.1.2021 the Accused paid Rs.45,000/- and
on 8.2.2021 Accused paid Rs.5000/- through online transfer to
the Complainant. The contention of the Accused is that, he
borrowed Rs.3 lakhs from the Complainant and it was returned
to the Complainant in the year 2017, 2018 and 2021. But, he
has not produced any document to show that, except in the
year 2021 the payment of amount to the Complainant on 2017
and 2018 has not produced any cogent documents.
27. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel
for Accused submitted that, the Accused has not proved his
financial capacity to lend Rs.8 lakhs amount to the Accused.
Further, the reply notice was not produced by the Complainant
and further submits that, the Complainant was lent amount of
Rs.8 lakhs, then why the Complainant kept quiet from date of
19 C.C.No.55062/2022
payment to 2021. The six years gap for non-returning of Rs.87
lakhs amount, the reasons were not mentioned by the
Complainant. It is further submitted that, the amount was
lent in the year 2015 from the date of providing the loan and
date of cheque and complaint instituted after 7 years. Hence,
the debt is time barred and barred by limitation. Hence, the
complaint is not maintainable. In this regard, the learned
Counsel for Accused relied on 1997 (2) Crimes 658
Giridharilal Rathi V/s. P.T.V. Ramanujachari and another
wherein it is held that;
“In case of cheque issued for time barred debt
which is dishonoured, the Accused cannot be
convicted u/Sec.138 of N.I Act on the ground that the
debt was not legally recoverable.”
Further they relied on 2008 (4) SCC 54 Krishna
Janardhana Bhatt V/s. Dattatraya G. Hegde in para No.13
wherein it is held that;
“Thus, for the purpose of falling with the ambit
of Sec.138 of N.I Act, one of the ingredients which is
required to be satisfied is that there is a legally
enforceable debt. The period of limitation which is 3
years had clearly expired. Therefore, the cheque in
20 C.C.No.55062/2022question which was issued in respect of time barred
debt. Hence, it is not enforceable debt. Hence, the
provisions of Sec.138 of N.I. Act would therefore not
be attracted.”
28. In the present case admittedly, the Accused borrowed
amount from the Complainant in the year 2015. As per the
contention of the Accused he repaid the said amount part by
part in the year 2017, 2018 and 2021 and Ex.P1 cheque was
issued in the year 2022. Since from the same transaction, in
the year 2021 there was an updated transaction between
Complainant and Accused. Hence, Ex.P1 amount is not time
barred debt. Hence, contention taken by the Accused is not
sustainable.
29. Further the learned counsel for Accused relied on the
decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in 2015 (1) SCC 99 in the
case of Subramani V/s. K. Damodara Naidu wherein it is held
that;
“Negotiable Instrument Act Sec.138, 118 and
139 – Dishonour of cheque – Legally enforceable debt
not proved as Complainant could not prove source of
income from which alleged loan was made to appellant
21 C.C.No.55062/2022
– Presumption in favour of holder of cheque, Hence,
held, stood rebutted – Acquittal restored.”
It is further held that;
“The Complainant did not produce Bank
statement to substantiate his claim. The trial court
look into account the testimony of the wife of the
Complainant in another criminal case rising
u/Sec.138 of the Act in which she has stated that the
present appellant – Accused had not taken any loan
from her husband. On consideration of entire oral
and documentary evidence the trial court came to the
conclusion that the Complainant had no source of
income to lend a sum of Rs.14 lakhs to the Accused
and he failed to prove that there is a legally
recoverable debt payable by the Accused to him.”
30. In the present case it is pertaining to note that the
Complainant during the course of cross-examination has not
suggested or cross examined the Complainant on his income. In
the cross-examination of Complainant, he stated that in the
year 2015 his annual income is Rs.10-15 lakhs and on that
time also he was income tax assessee. Therefore, without taking
such defence in the cross-examination, the Accused not taken
contention that he has no financial capacity to lend the amount
of Rs.8 lakhs.
22 C.C.No.55062/2022
31. Therefore, considering the entire oral and documentary
evidence placed by both parties the Accused has failed to rebut
the presumption. Therefore, the Ex.P1 cheque was issued by
the Accused towards legally enforceable debt in favour of
Complainant.
32. As discussed above, it has to be presumed that the
cheque in question was issued by the accused to discharge the
legally recoverable debt or liability. The accused can place
rebuttal evidence so as to show that the cheque was not issued
for consideration. As appreciated supra, accused has failed to
put acceptable and satisfactory evidence to probabilise the
defence. Therefore, there is no question of saying that the
cheque was not issued for liability.
33. So, far as sentence and compensation is concern, an
offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act, is a civil
wrong and compensatory in nature, punitive is secondary,
considering, the above settled principle of law with facts and
circumstances of the case, which clearly reveals that, the
Accused is liable to repay the loan amount to the Complainant
and towards partial repayment of the said loan amount, the
cheque in question was issued by the accused to the
23 C.C.No.55062/2022
complainant. Therefore, considering the nature of transaction,
duration of pendency, litigation expenses, I am opinion that, if
sentence of fine of Rs.4,24,200/- (Rupees Four Lakhs
Twenty-four Thousand and Two Hundred only) is imposed
that would meet the ends of justice, accordingly, the accused is
hereby sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.4,24,200/- (Rupees Four
Lakhs Twenty-four Thousand and Two Hundred only), out
of that, the complainant is entitled for sum of Rs.4,19,200/-
(Rupees Four Lakhs Nineteen Thousand and Two Hundred
only) as a compensation as per Sec.357(1) of Cr.P.C.,
remaining amount of Rs.5,000/-, is to be appropriated to the
State, in case of default the accused shall undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of 3 months. Accordingly, the Point
No.1 is answered in Affirmative.
34. POINT No.2: In view of discussion held in Point No.1,
I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Acting U/S 255(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is
convicted for the offence punishable Under Section
138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
Accused is sentenced to pay fine of
Rs.4,24,200/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Twenty-four
24 C.C.No.55062/2022Thousand and Two Hundred only) in default to
undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months.
Further, it is made clear that out of fine amount,
Rs.4,19,200/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Nineteen
Thousand and Two Hundred only) is to be paid to
the complainant as compensation and Rs.5,000/-
is ordered to be remitted to the State.
Bail bond stands cancelled.
Supply the free copy of this judgement to the
Accused forthwith.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected by me
and then pronounced in the open court on this 23rd June 2025)
(PARVEEN A BANKAPUR)
XXXIV ACJM, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE
1. Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:
P.W.1 Mr. Srinivas
2. Documents marked on behalf of complainant:
Ex.P.1 Cheque Ex.P.1 (a) Signature of the Accused Ex.P.2 Bank challan Ex.P.3 Bank endorsement Ex.P.4 Office copy of legal notice Ex.P.5 Postal receipt Ex.P.6 Postal acknowledgement
3. Witnesses examined on behalf of Accused:
D.W.1 Mr. Mohammed Jamshi D.W.2 Mr. Shafi Ulla Shariff
4. Documents marked on behalf of Accused:
Ex.D.1 Legal notice
Ex.D.2 Copy of Reply notice
Ex.D.3 Postal acknowledgement
(PARVEEN A BANKAPUR)
XXXIV ACJM, BENGALURU.