- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10928 CRL.RP No. 1246 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1246 OF 2019 BETWEEN: 1. FULGENT ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD., ADDRESS-NO.1186 1ST FLOOR, NARAYAPPA ROAD BEL LAYOUT, VIDYARANYAPURA BLORE 97, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR KOTRESH NAIK. 2. KOTRESH NAIK MANAGING DIRECTOR FULGENT ELECTRONICS PVT LTD ADDRESS-NO.1186 1ST FLOOR, NARAYAPPA ROAD BEL LAYOUT, VIDYARANYAPURA BLORE 97. 3. SUDHAKAR B.C S/O LATE CHANNALPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.498, 2ND BLOCK 19TH MAIN ROD, HMT LAYOUT VIDYARANYAPURA BANGALORE - 97. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI ANIL KUMAR S, ADV., FOR SRI DALWAI VENKATESH, ADV.) AND: JAGRUTHI ELECTRONIC TECHNOLOGIES ADDRESS-NO.7, 3RD MAIN, 8TH CROSS RPC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, 2ND STAGE B LORE 40, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRPRIETOR M.C. SHIVAPRASAD. …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10928 CRL.RP No. 1246 of 2019 (BY SRI A.V. GANGADHARAPPA, ADV.) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AND FINE IMPOSED BY THE LEARNED XXV A.C.M.M., VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 14.06.2017 PASSED IN C.C.NO.19011/2012 AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ACQUIT THE PETITIONERS.2.CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DATED 03.08.2019 PASSED BY LXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE CCH-65 AT BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.986/2017 CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE XXV A.C.M.M., AT BENGALURU CITY IN C.C.NO.19011/2012. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. Accused nos.1, 3 & 4 are before this Court in this criminal revision petition filed under Sections 397 read with 401 of Cr.PC with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 14.06.2017 passed in CC.No.19011/2012 by the Court of XXV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, and the judgment and order dated 03.08.2019 passed by the Court of LXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Crl.A.No.986/2017. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. Respondent herein had initiated proceedings against the petitioners and another before the jurisdictional Court of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10928 CRL.RP No. 1246 of 2019 Magistrate at Bengaluru, in CC.No.19011/2012 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act. 4. It is the case of the respondent that accused no.1- company represented by its Managing Director had placed orders with the complainant-company on 14.10.2011 for supply of LED (Light Emitting Diodes) and in response, the complainant had supplied LED materials worth Rs.5,77,395/- and had accordingly raised invoices. Towards repayment of the amount covered under the invoices, the cheque in question bearing No.013306 dated 05.01.2012 for a sum of Rs.5,77,395/- drawn on Axis Bank Ltd., Vidyaranyapra Branch, Bengaluru, in favour of the complainant was issued. The said cheque when presented for realization, was dishonoured by the drawee bank with a shara ‘insufficient funds’. At the request of the accused, the cheque was re-presented and for the second time, the cheque was dishonoured by the drawee bank. Thereafter, legal notice was issued on behalf of the complainant to the accused and since the accused had failed to repay the amount covered under the cheque in question, proceedings was - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10928 CRL.RP No. 1246 of 2019 initiated against accused nos.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act in CC.No.19011/2012. 4. The complaint against accused no.2 – Secretary of accused no.1-company was dismissed on the basis of the memo filed by the complainant to delete accused no.2 from the complaint. Thereafter, the complaint was prosecuted only as against accused nos.1, 3 & 4, named in the complaint. Since accused nos.1, 3 & 4 had pleaded not guilty before the Trial Court in CC.No.19011/2012, the complainant in order to prove its case, had examined its Proprietor – M.C.Shivaprasad as PW- 1 and had got marked 18 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-18. On behalf of the defence, accused nos.3 & 4 had examined themselves as DW-1 & DW-2, respectively, and one document was marked as Ex.D-1. 5. The Trial Court after hearing the arguments addressed on both sides, and appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted accused no.1, 3 & 4 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and sentenced accused nos.3 & 4 to pay fine of Rs.5,79,395/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10928 CRL.RP No. 1246 of 2019 year. The said judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in CC.No.19011/2012 was confirmed by the Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.986/2017 by judgment and order dated 03.08.2019. It is under these circumstances, accused nos.1, 3 & 4 are before this Court. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the courts below have failed to appreciate the defence and have erred in convicting the petitioners for the alleged offences. He submits that accused no.4 was only an employee of accused no.1-company and no proper notice was served on him. Therefore, the courts below were not justified in convicting and sentencing him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. 7. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent has argued in support of the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below. 8. PW-1 who is the Proprietor of the respondent-firm, has reiterated the complaint averments during the course of his deposition and has stated that in response to the purchase - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10928 CRL.RP No. 1246 of 2019 order at Ex.P-2 dated 14.10.2011 placed on behalf of accused no.1-company, the complainant had supplied LED materials worth Rs.5,77,395/-. Invoices raised by the complainant is produced and marked as Exs.P-4, P-6 & P-7. The cheque in question is marked as Ex.P-8. Signature of accused no.3 in the said cheque is marked as Ex.P-8(a) and the signature of accused no.4 is marked as Ex.P-8(b). The said signatures have not been disputed by accused nos.3 & 4, nor it is disputed that the cheque in question was drawn on the bank account of accused no.1-company maintained in Axis Bank, Vidyaranyapura Branch, Bengaluru. 9. Undisputedly, the said cheque when presented for realization was dishonoured by the drawee bank. Under the circumstances, a presumption arises as against the accused as provided under Sections 139 read with 118 of the N.I.Act, and unless the said presumption is rebutted by putting forward a probable defence, the accused is liable to be punished for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act. 10. The transaction between the parties in the present case is not in dispute. Accused have setup a defence that the purchase - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10928 CRL.RP No. 1246 of 2019 order was for a sum of Rs.4,10,000/- and invoices raised was for a sum of Rs.5,77,395/-. Thereafter, the blank signed cheque which was issued along with the purchase order was misused by the complainant for the purpose of filing the present case against the accused. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of BIR SINGH VS MUKESH KUMAR – (2019)4 SCC 197, has held that the person in whose favour the cheque is issued is entitled to fill up the said cheque and no fault can be found in the same. In paragraphs 33 to 36 of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “33. A meaningful reading of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act including, in particular, Sections 20, 87 and 139, makes it amply clear that a person who signs a cheque and makes it over to the payee remains liable unless he adduces evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque had been issued for payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability. It is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer. If the cheque is otherwise valid, the penal provisions of Section 138 would be attracted. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10928 CRL.RP No. 1246 of 2019 34. If a signed blank cheque is voluntarily presented to a payee, towards some payment, the payee may fill up the amount and other particulars. This in itself would not invalidate the cheque. The onus would still be on the accused to prove that the cheque was not in discharge of a debt or liability by adducing evidence. 35. It is not the case of the respondent-accused that he either signed the cheque or parted with it under any threat or coercion. Nor is it the case of the respondent-accused that the unfilled signed cheque had been stolen. The existence of a fiduciary relationship between the payee of a cheque and its drawer, would not disentitle the payee to the benefit of the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the absence of evidence of exercise of undue influence or coercion. The second question is also answered in the negative. 36. Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt.” 12. In the present case, the transaction between the parties is also proved by the complainant by producing the purchase orders, invoice copies, etc. According to the accused, the purchase order was not for the amount mentioned in the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10928 CRL.RP No. 1246 of 2019 invoices and the accused has also setup a defence that supply of material is in violation of the terms and conditions of the contract between the parties. However, the said defence has not been probablized by the accused by producing necessary oral and documentary evidence. 13. Accused nos.3 & 4 are the signatories to the cheque in question – Ex.P-8. Accused no.3 is the Managing Director as well as the signatory to the cheque in question, and therefore, he is liable to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act in view of Section 141 of the N.I.Act. 14. So far as accused no.4 is concerned, he has examined himself as PW-2 and he has deposed that he was only working as a technician in accused no.1-company and he was not participating in the day to day affairs of the company. Ex.D-1 is the copy of the resignation acceptance letter of accused no.4. The same is dated 10.08.2011, whereas the cheque in question is dated 05.01.2012, which is much after the date of acceptance of the resignation of DW-2. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10928 CRL.RP No. 1246 of 2019 15. Ex.P-12 is the copy of the legal notice and Ex.P-14 is the copy of the envelope in which the legal notice was forwarded to accused no.4. Perusal of the said document would go to show that legal notice was sent to the address of accused no.1- company. As on the date of issuing the legal notice, accused no.4/DW-2 had already resigned from the company. Notice appears to be received in the company, and therefore, it cannot be said that notice was duly served on accused no.4 in the present case. 16. Even otherwise, the material on record would go to show that as on the date of the cheque, accused no.4 had already resigned from the company. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court were not justified in convicting and sentencing accused no.4 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. 17. So far as accused nos.1 & 3 are concerned, the courts below were fully justified in convicting them for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, and even the order of sentence passed against them is just and proper. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10928 CRL.RP No. 1246 of 2019 impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below as against accused nos.1 & 3 who are petitioner nos.1 & 2 herein has to be confirmed, and the same is liable to be set aside in so far as it relates to accused no.4/petitioner no.3 herein. Accordingly, the following order: 18. Criminal revision petition is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 14.06.2017 passed in CC.No.19011/2012 by the Court of XXV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, and the judgment and order dated 03.08.2019 passed by the Court of LXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Crl.A.No.986/2017, are confirmed as against accused nos.1 & 3, and are set aside in so far as it relates to accused no.4. Accused no.4 is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. His bail bonds, if any, stands cancelled. Amount in deposit is permitted to be withdrawn by the respondent-complainant. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK