- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10663 CRL.A No. 1112 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1112 OF 2024 (A) BETWEEN: K MOHAN AND COMPANY (EXPORTS) PVT LTD B-1, 62/5, BEGUR ROAD, DEVARACHIKKANAHALLI MAIN ROAD, BOMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU-560068. PRESENTLY AT NO.372, 1ST FLOOR, CABIN NO.106, WS NO.6, 6TH CROSS, GOLDEN SQUARE, WILSON GARDEN, BENGALURU-560 027, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, MR. CHANDRAKANT KONDIRAM WETAL. …APPELLANT (BY SRI KAVITHA DAMODARAN AND SRI VACHAN H U, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. STRAWBERRY LENCERIA PRIVATE LIMITED NO.3347/A, 2ND FLOOR, 13TH MAIN, HAL 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 008. 2. MR. THANDAND THAN KRISHNADAS MANAGING DIRECTOR, Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10663 CRL.A No. 1112 of 2024 STRAWBERRY LENCERIA PRIVATE LIMITED, NO.3347/A, 2ND FLOOR, 13TH MAIN, HAL 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 008. ALSO AT NO.26, AISHWARYA, 1ST CROSS, 2ND MAIN, DOMLUR, 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 071. 3. MR. THUNDIPARAMBIL JOSEPH FRANCIS JOSEPH DIRECTOR SALES, STRAWBERRY LENCERIA PRIVATE LIMITED, NO.3347/A, 2ND FLOOR, 13TH MAIN, HAL 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 008. ALSO AT NO.24, VENKATESHWAR LAYOUT, JAYANTHI NAGAR, HORAMAVU, BENGALURU-560 043. 4. MS. SHEETAL RAJ NATARAJ ADONI DIRECTOR PRODUCT AND DESIGN - WOMEN, STRAWBERRY LENCERIA PRIVATE LIMITED, NO. 3347/A, 2ND FLOOR, 13TH MAIN, HAL 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 008. ALSO AT 1ST CROSS, NEAR MAHADI MOTORS, SRE LAYOUT, CHITRADURGA-577 501. …RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO R1 TO R4 SERVED, UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.378(4) CR.P.C PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10663 CRL.A No. 1112 of 2024 JUDGMENT DATED 24.04.2024 PASSED BY THE XIV ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND A.C.M.M BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.3792/2018 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I ACT AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that proceedings is initiated under Section 138 of NI Act against accused No.1 and other accused persons and accused Nos.3, 5 and other accused were not secured before the Trial Court and hence, the proceedings initiated against accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 6 and they have faced the trial but the Trial Court while passing the order though raised the point for consideration, same has been answered as negative and not given any finding in respect of accused No.1 and thus, erroneously passed an order - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10663 CRL.A No. 1112 of 2024 acquitting accused Nos.2, 4 and 6 and the Trial Court ought to have given finding against accused No.1 also. The counsel further submits that in respect of other accused, the matter is pending before the Trial Court and only accused No.5 was secured and proceeding is going on against accused No.5 and proclamation is issued against other accused persons. 3. Having perused the order of the Trial Court, it discloses that the Trial Court considered the evidence of power of attorney holder who has not having the knowledge about the transaction and PW2 evidence is very clear that he does not know about the transaction between the complainant and accused. PW2 is the authorized person but he has not having knowledge about the transaction. Hence, relied upon the judgment reported in (2014) 11 SCC 790 in the case of A C NARAYANA vs STATE OF MAHARASTRA AND ANOTHER and answered the point as negative. The counsel for the appellant rightly brought to notice of this Court when the complaint - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10663 CRL.A No. 1112 of 2024 is filed against the company and others directors, nothing discussed in the judgment of the Trial Court with regard to the company and this Court also issued notice against the respondents and inspite of service of notice, they did not choose to appear before the Court. 4. Having taken note of the material on record when the Trial Court did not discuss anything about the company as well as directors whether they are well known to the facts or not and only reason assigned by the Trial Court is power of attorney holder who has no knowledge regarding the transactions, cannot be examined as a witness in the case. But the Trial Court ought to have taken note of the evidence placed on record and nothing is discussed with regard to accused No.1-company is concerned. When the matter is pending before the Trial Court, it is appropriate to set aside the order and remand the matter for reconsideration along with pending case which is now in consideration in respect of accused No.5. Hence, this case has to be considered along with - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10663 CRL.A No. 1112 of 2024 C.C.No.3298/2024 and consider the issue involved between the complainant as well as accused No.1- company and directors and thereby consider the matter afresh. Even if any further evidence given by the complainant/appellant, the same shall be considered by the Trial Court. Hence the order impugned requires to be set aside. 5. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 24.04.2024 passed in C.C.No.3792/2018 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration along with the pending C.C.No.3298/2024 in view of observation made above. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN