- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2368 CRL.A No. 200227 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200227 OF 2022 (378(Cr.PC)/419(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SHRI ANANT S/O KASTURICHAND JAIN PROP. JAIN ELECTRICALS, BEHIND BHARAT PETROL PUMP, SINDAGI ROAD, INDI, AGED:48 YEARS, OCC: CLASS-1 CONTRACTOR, R/O. INDI, TQ. INDI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586209. …APPELLANT (BY SRI YASHAS S. DIKSHIT, ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI SUSHIL S/O MALASHETTEPPA MAMADE, PROP. SAINATH FERTILIZERS, SIDDA-SHIVANANDAN, AGED: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. HOUSE NO. 1-1400-22/2, AKKAMAHADEVI COLONY, OPP. HIGH COURT, KALABURAGI-585103. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SANDESH CHOUTHA SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI N. B. DIWANJI, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2368 CRL.A No. 200227 of 2022 THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S. 378 (4) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO 1) TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.10.2022 PASSED IN C.C.NO.40/2016 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, INDI. 2) THE HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ORDER ACCUSED TO PAY THE TOTAL CHEQUE AMOUNT OF Rs.40,00,000/- TO THE COMPLAINANT. 3) THE HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ORDER PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION OF 16% INTEREST RATE ON TOTAL CHEQUE AMOUNT OF Rs.40,00,000/- TILL REALIZATION OF THE SAID AMOUNT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) 1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant / complainant, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 21.10.2022 passed in C.C.No.40/2016 on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Indi, wherein the Appellate Court acquitted the respondent herein/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘N.I Act’). 2. The rank of the parties in the Trial Court will be considered henceforth as per their rankings for convenience. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2368 CRL.A No. 200227 of 2022 Factual matrix of the case: 3. The case of the complainant is that he was doing electrical contract works since many years. He had established electrical contract work within the Vijayapura District. His work was been carried out under the name and style as “Jain Electricals”. Recently he got work from GESCOM, Kalaburagi, wherein, he had to erect the electrical poles in the lands of the farmers. He had assured that fertilizers would be given to the farmers for having provided an opportunity to erect the electrical poles in their lands. 4. The accused was in need of Rs.40,00,000/- in the month of June-2014, for the purpose of discharging his liabilities. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.40,00,000/- on 30.06.2014 through bank. After receiving the amount the accused agreed to repay the amount. In the month of November-2015 the complainant requested to repay the amount. However, on 01.12.2015, the accused issued post-dated cheques of Rs.40,00,000/- to clear the liability. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2368 CRL.A No. 200227 of 2022 5. Those cheques were presented for encashment. However, the said cheques returned with a shara as “Funds Insufficient”. A notice was issued through R.P.A.D on 11.12.2015. Due to some advise by the accused, again notice was issued on 04.01.2016, the said notice was served. However, the accused did not repay the amount. Hence, a private complaint was filed. 6. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record acquitted the accused stating that the amount was issued by “Jain Electricals”, but the complaint was presented by Sri. Anant S/o Kasturichand Jain. Though, the said Anant appears to be the Proprietor of the said firm, the case was filed in his individual name. Hence, the Trial Court acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the same the appellant has filed this appeal. 7. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that legal notice were issued on 11.12.2015 and 04.01.2016 respectively. Service of notice was effected on the same day. Therefore, a complaint was filed within a stipulated time. However, the Trial Court holding that - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2368 CRL.A No. 200227 of 2022 complaint filed by Anand Jain who is no where concerned with “Jain Electrical”. Hence, the complaint is not maintainable which is not proper and the same is contrary to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Milind Shripad Chandurkar Vs. Kalim M Khan and Anr. reported in AIR 2011 SCC 1588. Making such submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant prays to allow the appeal. 8. Per Contra, the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently justified the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court and further submitted that the Trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused as the complaint was filed by the wrong person. Therefore, the appeal may be dismissed. Making such submission, the learned counsel for the respondent prays to reject the appeal. 9. Having heard the learned counsels for the respective parties and perused the findings of Trial Court, it is relevant to take note of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Milind Shripad Chandurkar Vs. Kalim M Khan and Anr. stated supra. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2368 CRL.A No. 200227 of 2022 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above said case held that in the case of this nature, where a payee is a Company or Sole Proprietary is concerned, such cases cannot be adjudicated upon by taking cognizance of Section 142 of the N.I.Act. But, cases shall be governed by General Law i.e., “The Companies Act, 1956 or by Civil Law, where individual carries on the business in the name and style other than his own name. In such cases, he can sue in his own name and not in the trading name, though others can sue him on his trading name. So far as Section 142 is concerned, a complaint shall be maintainable in the name of payee, proprietary concerned itself or in the name of the proprietor of the said concern” 11. In the present case, though Sri. Anant S/o Kasturichand Jain filed a complaint, the said complainant is the Proprietor of the Jain Electricals. The complaint filed by him is maintainable. Therefore, the findings of the Trial Court stating that the complaint is not maintainable appears to be erroneous and not proper. Therefore, the said findings are required to be set aside. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2368 CRL.A No. 200227 of 2022 12. In addition to the settled principle of law, the complainant has proved his case that he had lent an amount of Rs.40,00,000/- through bank account to the accused. Though, the same has been disputed by the accused, valid defence has not been put forth by him. Therefore, it is appropriate to record the conviction. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Criminal Appeal is allowed. ii. The judgment and order dated 21.10.2022 passed in C.C.No.40/2016 on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Indi, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is hereby, set aside. iii. The accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act. He is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.60,00,000/- along with 9% interest from the date of the judgment - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2368 CRL.A No. 200227 of 2022 of this Court. In default, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years. iv. In case, if, the amount is deposited, the Trial Court is directed to pay a sum of Rs.59,90,000/- to the complainant as a compensation along with 9% interest. The remaining amount shall be adjusted towards Ex-Chequer of the State. v. The Registry is directed to transmit the record to Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE NM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36 CT:PK