- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37175 CRL.RP No. 664 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 664 OF 2025 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SMT. N SUDHA PARTNER, KIRAN DISPLAY SYSTEM W/O. SRI. V. ANANDA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O. NO. 12, M NARAYANA REDDY INDUSTRIAL ESTATE OPP. T.T.K. FACTORY OLD MADRAS ROAD BENGALURU 560016. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAHESH KIRAN SHETTY S., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. GOVINDA RAJU AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O LATE SRI. ERA SWAMAPPA R/O. NO. 61, SLV NILAYA NARIYAPPA LAYOUT, 2ND CROSS AVALAHALLI, VIRGONAGARA POST BENGALURU - 560049. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHIVAPPA M., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AND FINE IMPOSED BY THE LEARNED THE COURT OF XXXIII ADDL. CMM, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGLAURU IN Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37175 CRL.RP No. 664 of 2025 C.C.NO.54483/2018 VIDE ORDER DATED 28.07.2022 AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.03.2025 PASSED BY THE COURT OF LXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU (CCH-74) PASSED IN CRL.A. NO.25219/2022 BY VIRTUE OF WHICH THE LEARNED SESSIONS JUDGE CONFIRMED THE CONVICTION BY THE LEARNED THE COURT OF XXXIII ADDL. CMM, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.54483/2018 FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 138 OF N.I. AC ACT AND FURTHER PASS AN ORDER ACQUITTING THE APPELLANT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER This petition is filed assailing the concurrent finding. In C.C. No.54483/2018, in terms of the judgment dated 28.07.2022, the accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.8,05,000/- on account of dishonour of six cheques for Rs.7,13,065/- in all. The Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.25219/2022 in terms of the judgment dated 11.03.2025 has dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. Hence, the accused is before this Court. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would urge that the petition is not maintainable as the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37175 CRL.RP No. 664 of 2025 complainant/respondent has initially arrayed the present petitioner as well as her husband as party to the proceeding. And thereafter, the complaint against husband is dismissed and the petitioner and her husband being the partners of Kiran Display Systems the prosecution could not have been launched only against the present petitioner. It is also his further submission that the complainant was the employee of Kiran Display Systems and entire salary payable to the complainant is paid and nothing is in arrears as alleged by the complainant. 3. It is his further submission that the documentary evidence as well as the oral evidence produced by the petitioner are not appreciated in a proper perspective as such, the impugned judgments are liable to be set-aside. 4. In the alternative, he would also submit that the petitioner's husband is having a serious ailment, and the petitioner has incurred huge expenditure towards medical treatment and the Kiran Display Systems is now - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37175 CRL.RP No. 664 of 2025 closed and the petitioner is not in a position to pay the amount. Thus, he would urge that the fine amount has to be waived and six months time is to be granted to pay the cheque amount. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant/respondent would submit that it is established that the complainant was an employee of Kiran Display Systems which is a proprietary concern and petitioner is a sole proprietor of the said firm. 6. It is an admitted fact that the respondent was employed and salary payable to the complainant for the period covering from the years 2013-18 are not paid and when the amount was demanded, the petitioner has issued six cheques towards arrears of salary and same is established through evidence. 7. It is his further submission that presumption available under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37175 CRL.RP No. 664 of 2025 Act in favour of the complainant is not rebutted by the accused by leading evidence. 8. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 9. The records before the Court would establish the fact that the complainant was an employee of Kiran Display Systems, a proprietary concern and the petitioner is a proprietrix of the said Kiran Display Systems. Since the accused has taken a defence that the salary is paid to the complainant, the accused was required to furnish the records relating to payment of salary. However, no such records are produced. The signatures on the cheques are admitted and the said cheques belong to proprietary concern. 10. Though it is urged that the complaint is defective for deleting the name of the petitioner's husband, it is to be noticed that the petitioner has not established the contention that the cheques were issued - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37175 CRL.RP No. 664 of 2025 on behalf of partnership firm, no document is produced to establish the existence of the alleged partnership firm. 11. This Court is of the view that the prosecution against the proprietrix of Kiran Display Systems is maintainable. The accused has admitted in the cross- examination that the signatures on the cheques are that of the accused. As already noticed no evidence is led to establish the fact that the salary payable to the complainant is paid by the petitioner. 12. This being the position, this Court has to hold that the cheques were issued in discharge of legally enforceable debt i.e., the salary payable to the complainant/respondent. Both Courts have concurrently held that the offence is established and presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not rebutted. 13. In exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court does not find - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37175 CRL.RP No. 664 of 2025 any reason to interfere with the finding relating to commission of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 14. However, it is noticed that the accused's husband is undergoing treatment and the establishment is also closed. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court have not granted any time to pay the fine amount. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner urged to grant 6 months time to pay the amount, considering the fact that the amount is due to the complainant/respondent in respect of the arrears of salary for the period from 2013-18, request for 6 months time is unreasonable. 15. As far as the contention relating to waiver of fine, this Court is of the view that the total fine amount of Rs.8,05,000/- imposed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court is not disproportionate considering the fact that there were 6 cheques issued to pay the arrears of salary for the period covering from 2013-18 and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37175 CRL.RP No. 664 of 2025 the amount payable under those six cheques were Rs.7,13,065/-. 16. Under these circumstances, there is no justification in the submission to waive the fine amount. However, considering the fact that the establishment is closed and the accused's husband is not keeping well, 75 days time from today is granted to pay the fine amount, failing which, the sentence of 6 month's simple imprisonment imposed by the Trial Court shall stand revived. 17. The fine amount in deposit shall be released to the complainant/respondent. The balance fine amount shall be paid within 75 days from today. 18. According, the petition is allowed-in-part. SD/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CHS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 22