- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20874 CRL.RP No. 117 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 117 OF 2023 BETWEEN: MR. RAKESH @ RAKESH C JAIN S/O LATE PARASMAI C AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT HOUSE NO.208, BASVESWAR BAZAR HAGARI BOMMANAHALLI BELLARY, KARNATAKA-583 212 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B.K. CHANDAN FOR SRI. BHADRAVADI SIDDESWARA, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. M/S. METAHELIX LIFE SCIENCES LTD PLOT NO.3, KIADB 4TH PHASE BOMMASANDRA RESIDING AT NO.EWS 681 2ND FLOOR, BENGALURU-560 099 REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AND MANAGER COMMERCIAL SRI. N. SRIDHAR 2. SRI. M/S MAHALAKSHMI SEEDS MAIN BAZAAR, MAIN ROAD OPP. VYASYA BANK LIMITED HAGARI BOMMANAHALLI BELLALRY DISTRICT-583 212 REP. BY RAJESH …RESPONDENTS (R1 AND R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20874 CRL.RP No. 117 of 2023 THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.11.2022 PASSED BY THE LV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-56) IN CRL.A.NO.1561/2019 CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 24.06.2019 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE 25TH ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.26920/2015 BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE REVISION PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR ORAL ORDER This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 28.11.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.1561/2019 by the LV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru where under the judgment of conviction dated 24.06.2019 passed in C.C.No.26920/2015 by the XXV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru convicting the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act has been affirmed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that PW.1 had no authority to give evidence on behalf of respondent/complainant – company. He further contended - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20874 CRL.RP No. 117 of 2023 that the petitioner is not the Proprietor of M/s.Mahalakshmi Seeds and one Rajesh is the Proprietor and he is the signatory to the cheque. 4. The cheque has been issued for making payment of amount due on invoices for supply of seeds which are at Ex.P1 to Ex.P182. The petitioner/accused has not disputed the transaction between the complainant and accused firm. The contention of the petitioner/accused that PW.1 is not having authority to give evidence on behalf of the company has been considered by the trial Court in para – 10 of the judgment. PW.1 is the power of attorney holder and the power of attorney is based on the board resolution. Considering the said aspect, the trial Court rejected the contention of the petitioner/accused. 5. The petitioner/accused has taken up another contention that he is not the Proprietor of the accused firm and he is not the signatory to Ex.P5 – cheque. In order to establish the said contention, the petitioner has not placed any material on record. Considering the said aspect, the trial Court has rejected the contention of the petitioner/accused. The appellate - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20874 CRL.RP No. 117 of 2023 Court also re-appreciated the evidence on record and rightly affirmed the judgment of conviction wherein the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. Even the petitioner has not placed any material before the appellate Court to show that he is not the Proprietor of M/s.Mahalakshmi Seeds. The cheque is drawn by the Proprietor of M/s.Mahalakshmi Seeds in favour of the respondent company. The respondent company has produced documents to show the transaction between M/s.Mahalakshmi Seeds and the complainant – company. Considering these aspects, the impugned judgments are passed. There are no grounds to entertain this revision petition. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE DKB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36