- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15791 CRL.RP No. 889 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 889 OF 2022 BETWEEN: SRI HARISH B M S/O MUDDEGOWDA R/AT BANNENAHALLI VILLAGE, THENDEKERE POST, BUKANAKERE HOBLI, K.R. PET TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI AKSHARA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI NANDISH PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: AKSHAYA PHARMA DISTRIBUTORS NO.44, GROUND FLOOR, 7th CROSS, AZAD NAGAR NEAR T .T MILL, BENGALURU 560 018. REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. T.G SHIVAKUMAR S/O GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, NO.15, 5th MAIN, 15th CROSS, MARUTHI NAGAR, CHANDRA LAYOUT, NAGARABHAVI, BENGALURU - 560 007. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI H.R.MANJUNATHA, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.PC BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15791 CRL.RP No. 889 of 2022 CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 13.09.2019 PASSED BY THE XXI A.C.M.M., IN C.C.NO.29048/2018 CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED LIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, VIDE ITS JUDGMENT DATED 04.04.2022 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.2131/2019 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR HEARING ON I.A., THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Accused had suffered an order of conviction in CC no.29048/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, confirmed in Crl.A.No. 2131/2019. He is the revision petitioner. 3. Facts in the nutshell, which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: 3.1 A complaint came to be filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C., alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by contending that complainant is a Proprietary Concern having - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15791 CRL.RP No. 889 of 2022 pharmacy distributorship and running said business in the name and style of 'M/s. Akshaya Pharmacy Distributors'. 3.2 Accused No.1 and 2 being the husband and wife, having a pharmacy in the name and style of 'Amrutha Medical Centre'. It is the second accused, who is running the business on behalf of the first accused. 3.3 It is further contented that during the course of their business with the complainant, said Amrutha Medical Center purchased medicines from the complainant to the tune of Rs.4,74,872/- as per the invoices raised. To discharge the said amount, second accused said to have issued two cheques bearing No.198221 and 198222 dated 25.07.2018, which on presentation, returned with an endorsement 'account closed'. Legal notice was issued calling upon the accused to make good amount covered under the cheques and there were no compliance. Therefore, the complainant sought for action. Learned trial magistrate after due trial, considered the relevant material evidence on record and convicted the accused and sentenced as under: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15791 CRL.RP No. 889 of 2022 "ORDER Acting under Section 255(2) r/w 264 of Cr.P.C., the accused no.2 is hereby convicted for the offence punishable u/S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Acting under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C., accused NO.1 Smt. M.K. Saraswathi is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable U/s.138 of NI Act as she is neither account holder nor drawer of the cheques. Sd/- (V. NAGARAJA) XXI ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, accused No.2 is hereby sentenced to pay fine of Rs.4,80,000/- (Four Lakhs and Eighty Thousand only). In default he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 4 (Four) months. In view of Section 357 of Cr.P.C., complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.4,75,000/- (Four Lakhs and Seventy Five Thousand only) out of above said fine amount. After collecting the above fine amount, office is directed to pay Rs.4,75,000/-/- (Four Lakhs and Seventy Five Thousand only) to complainant as compensation and defray remaining fine amount of Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand only) to state, after appeal period is over. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15791 CRL.RP No. 889 of 2022 However, accused No.1 and 2 shall execute personal bonds for Rs.4,80,000/- in view of Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C. The office is hereby directed to supply the copy of this Judgment to the accused on free of cost." 4. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.2131/2019. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and by considered judgment dated 04.04.2022, dismissed the appeal of the accused. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition contended that both the Courts have wrongly convicted the accused and sought for allowing the revision. 6. It is further emphasized that the probative value of Exs.D1 and D2 is not taken into consideration by the learned Trial Magistrate while convicting the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which has - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15791 CRL.RP No. 889 of 2022 resulted in grave miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 7. Per contra, Sri H.R.Manjunath, learned counsel for the respondent-complainant supports the impugned judgment. 8. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 9. On such perusal of the material on record, there is no dispute that Exs.P1 and P2 - cheques belonged to accused and signature found therein is that of the accused. 10. A copy of the legal notice is placed at Ex.P4 and office copy of the invoices are placed at Exs.P8 to P25. Postal acknowledgment having served the legal notice is found at Ex.P6 and absolutely there is no reply to the legal notice. 11. Before the Trial Court, however the accused has taken a contention that the medicines were purchased by the first accused and therefore, cheque issued by the second accused did not carry any legally recoverable debt and therefore, sought for acquittal. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15791 CRL.RP No. 889 of 2022 12. Learned Trial Judge, while considering the said aspect of the matter in paragraph no.20 has held as under: "20. Whereas learned counsel for accused in support of above defence, in his written arguments as well as oral arguments, he argued that the complainant in his cross-examination, he clearly admitted that whenever complainant supply medicines to anybody, he used to collect acknowledgements for having delivered the goods and after entire payment, he would return the acknowledgments to purchaser of the goods. Accordingly, in the present case also, after entire payment, the complainant returned acknowledgements to accused as per Ex.D-1 and Ex.D-2. So, there is no due. Such being so, question of issuance of present cheques for alleged due amount does not arise. In fact, the complainant has misused security cheques given by accused No.2 in connection with chit transaction. Hence, present complaint is liable to be dismissed and both accused may be acquitted." 13. Further, admittedly first accused is none other than the wife of the second accused. They were running the pharmacy in the name of 'Amrutha Medical Centre'. Admittedly, it is neither a Partnership Firm nor a Private Limited Company so as to appreciate the contentions heard on behalf of the revision petitioner that second accused is not liable for the liability of the first accused. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15791 CRL.RP No. 889 of 2022 14. Further, assuming that it is the exclusive view of the first accused, the cheque issued towards the other liability namely, the liability of the first accused will also be covered under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 15. In fact, the complainant enjoys the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as to the legally recoverable debt or other liability. 16. No doubt it is a rebuttable presumption. To rebut the said presumption, oral evidence of accused coupled with Exs.D1 and D2 did not advance the case of the accused to any extent in denying the liability in as much as Exs.P1 and P2 - cheques and signatures found therein is that of the accused no. 2, who is the revision petitioner. 17. Therefore, the conviction of the accused for the aforesaid offence is just and proper which has been rightly appreciated by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court. 18. This Court, having regard to the limited revisional jurisdiction did not find any patent factual error nor error of jurisdiction in convicting the accused. Sentence ordered by the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15791 CRL.RP No. 889 of 2022 Trial Magistrate is also appropriate having regard to the attendant facts and circumstances of the case and accordingly, in the absence of any revision by the complainant, there is no scope for any enhancement of the sentence. 19. Hence, the following: ORDER Revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8