- 1 - CRL.RP No.29 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.29 OF 2017 BETWEEN: 1 . M/S. N. N. ISPAT HAVING ITS REGD OFFICE AT NO.23, KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA, TAMAKA KOLAR, KOLAR DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS PROP SRI NIKHIL KUMAR GUPTA 2 . MR. NIKHIL KUMAR GUPTA S/O SRI NARENDRA KUMAR GUPTA, NO.748, I FLOOR, 10TH MAIN, III STAGE, BASAVESHWARANAGAR BANGALORE 560079. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. DEVARAJ N., ADV.) AND: M/S BHARATH INFRA EXPORTS AND IMPORTS LTD HAVING ITS REGD OFFICE AT 48, HEBBAGODI HOSUR MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE 100 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED PERSON SRI KSR SAGAR. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. D.L.JAGADEESH, SR. COUNSEL FOR SMT. RAKSHITHA D.J., ADV.) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.04.2015 PASSED IN C.C.NO.20135/2011 BY XXI ACMM, BANGALORE AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.641/2015 DATED 30.11.2016 BY THE LXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J., BANGALORE AND ETC. Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.08.01 15:03:45 +0530 - 2 - CRL.RP No.29 of 2017 THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 25.07.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT, PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CAV ORDER The accused have preferred this revision petition against the Judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 01st April, 2015 passed in CC.No.20135 of 2011 by the XXI Additional CMM Court, Bangalore (for short “the trial Court”), which is confirmed by Judgment and order dated 30th November, 2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No.641 of 2015 by the LXV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, (CCH-66) (for short “the appellate Court”). 2. For convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. Factual background of the case: 3. The private complaint filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “the NI Act”), alleging that the accused No.2-Proprietor of accused No.1- Company, placed order for raw material worth Rs.15,00,000/. Upon delivery of goods, the accused issued Cheque No.372365 - 3 - CRL.RP No.29 of 2017 dated 04TH December, 2010 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Peenya Industrial Estate Branch, Bengaluru. When the cheque was presented, the same came to be returned with bank endorsement “exceeds arrangement”. Despite legal notice being duly served, the accused failed to pay the cheque amount, leading to the filing of the complaint. The trial Court convicted the accused under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced the accused to pay fine of Rs.15,10,000/- with default sentence of ten months simple imprisonment. The appellate Court upheld the decision. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused have preferred this Revision Petition. Submissions on behalf of revision petitioners-accused: 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri N. Devaraj, contended that both the Courts have failed to properly appreciate the defence evidence and the documents Exhibits D2 and D3-Bank statements showing RTGS payments. He would submit that the cheque in question was issued only a security instrument as per the agreement between the parties. The payment for receipt of raw materials was made through RTGS prior to presentation of the cheque and the complainant, instead of returning the cheque, has misused it. It is further submitted that the complainant, being an Ex-MLC, exerted - 4 - CRL.RP No.29 of 2017 undue influence and obtained documents including the General Power of Attorney from the accused under coercion. The statement made in cross-examination indicating that RTGS transfers had nothing to do with the cheque in question, was misinterpreted. On all these grounds, it was sought to allow the revision petitions. Submission on behalf of the respondent-Complainant: 5. As against this, the learned Senior Counsel D.L. Jagadeesh, appearing on behalf of Smt. D.J. Rakshitha, learned Counsel for the respondent, would submit that both Courts have properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with the law and facts. Absolutely, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court which is confirmed by the appellate Court. He would submit that the accused failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act. The RTGS payments were not contemporaneous with the cheque and not linked to the invoices in question. The accused has not replied to the statutory legal notice. The allegations of influence and misuse of cheques were raised only during trial and are unsupported by documentary evidence. Further, he submits that the accused failed to comply with the Interim - 5 - CRL.RP No.29 of 2017 Order dated 15th November, 2018 passed by this Court directing the accused to deposit 50% of the fine amount, showing lack of bona fides. On all these grounds, the learned Senior Counsel sought to dismiss the revision petition with exemplary costs. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the following decisions: 1) BIR SINGH v. MUKESH KUMAR – (2019)4 SCC 458; 2) K.N. BEENA v. MUNIYAPPAN AND ANOTHER – (2001)8 SCC 458; 3) UTTAM RAM v. DEVINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER – (2019)10 SCC 287; 4) STP LTD. BANGALORE v. USHA PAINTS DECORATIONS, BANGALORE AND ANOTHER – (2006)5 KLJ 323; 5) LALE PATEL v. SHARAN BASAPPA – (2012)7 KAR 473. 6. By way of re-joinder, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that the petitioner not complying with the interim order passed by this Court cannot be a ground for dismissal of revision petitions. The Court has to dispose of the case on merits. To substantiate this submission, he has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme - 6 - CRL.RP No.29 of 2017 Court in the case of VIJAYA D. SALVI v. STATE OF MAHARASTRA AND OTHERS reported in (2007) 5 SCC 741. 7. Having heard the arguments on both sides and on perusal of materials, the following point would arise for my consideration; “Whether the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court which is confirmed by the Appellate Court is perverse, capricious and suffers from legal infirmities?” Finding: 8. I have examined the materials placed before me. The respondent complainant has filed complaint under Section 138 of NI Act for dishonour of Cheque and legal notice under the said Section. The complainant complied with all the procedural mandates under Sections 138 and 142 of the NI Act. The presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act in favour of the complainant is statutory and mandatory, unless rebutted by cogent evidence. The defence of the accused that the cheque being a mere security and the payments were made through RTGS, has not been supported by documentary proof linking the transfers to the specific invoices or cheque. In the cross- - 7 - CRL.RP No.29 of 2017 examination, the accused admitted that the RTGS transfers were not related to the dishonoured cheque. As regards the complainants misuse of political influence, as also coercion, is also not supported by reliable or admissible evidence. The complaint-Exhibit D5 does not mention the disputed cheque. Both the courts have rightly appreciated the evidence and arrived at a concurrent finding of guilt. This Court does not find any perversity, misapplication of law or miscarriage of justice in the decisions rendered by the trial Court which is confirmed by the Appellate Court. Conclusion: 9. In the light of discussion made above, I answer the point arose for consideration, in the negative. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: O R D E R i) Revision petition dismissed; ii) Judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 01st April, 2015 passed in CC.No.20135 of 2011 by the XXI Additional CMM Court, Bangalore, which is confirmed by Judgment and order dated 30th November, 2016 passed in Crl.A. - 8 - CRL.RP No.29 of 2017 No.641 of 2015 by the LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, (CCH-66), is confirmed; iii) Registry to send the trial court records along with copy of this Order to the concerned Court. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE lnn