- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10370 CRL.RP No. 336 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 336 OF 2024 BETWEEN: PAVITHRA HARSWARE AND ELECTRICALS HAVING OFFICE AT NO.150 SAINAGAR, CHIKKABETTAHALLI VIDYARANYAPURA BANGALORE - 560 097 REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR KALURAM PATEL. …PETITIONER (BY SRI K.C. CHANDRASHEKARA, ADV.) AND: M/S GULSHAN TRADNG COMPANY HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.14 2ND CROSS,2ND MAIN, SY NO.29 KSSIDC INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT VEERASANDRA 2ND STAGE CHIKKANAGAMANGALA VILLAGE HUSKUR ROAD CROSS, BANGALORE - 560 099 REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SRI RAGHAVENDRA B.T. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI PRASANNA KUMAR B.T, ADV.) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 27.12.2023 PASSED BY THE LXXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL, BENGALURU (CCH-73) IN CRL.A.NO.25250/2022 AND ALSO THE ORDER OF TRIAL COURT DATED 20.08.2022 PASSED BY THE XVII ADDITIONA JUDGE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND ADDL.C.M.M., MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU (SCCH-21), IN C.C.NO.60038/2018 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER. Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10370 CRL.RP No. 336 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.PC. is filed with a prayer to set-aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 20.08.2022 in CC No.60038/2018 passed by the Court of XVII Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and ACMM, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru, and the judgment and order dated 27.12.2023 passed in Crl.A.No.25250/2022 by the Court of LXXII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Respondent/complainant had initiated proceedings against the petitioner herein before the jurisdictional Court of Magistrate in CC No.60038/2018. It is the case of the complainant that the complainant had supplied various plumbing/sanitary items to the accused based on the purchase orders placed on behalf of the accused and in discharge of the partial liability, the accused had issued cheque in question - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10370 CRL.RP No. 336 of 2024 bearing No.048578 dated 16.08.2018 drawn on Allahabad Bank, Yalahanka New Town Branch, Bengaluru, for a sum of Rs.23,40,477/-. The said cheque on presentation for realization was dishonoured by the drawee bank with shara 'exceeds arrangement'. Thereafter, statutory legal notice was got issued on 11.09.2018 which was returned with a shara 'refused'. It is under these circumstances, the respondent had initiated proceedings against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N. I. Act. 4. Before the Trial Court, authorized signatory of complainant company, namely, Raghavendra B. T., was examined as PW1 and 38 documents were got marked as Ex.P1 to P38. On behalf of defence, proprietor of the petitioner firm was examined as DW1 and another witness was examined as DW2. 22 documents were got marked on behalf of the accused as Ex.D1 to D22. The Trial Court, after hearing arguments addressed on both sides and appreciating the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, had convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N. I. Act and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.29,02,191/- and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10370 CRL.RP No. 336 of 2024 in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The said judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in CC No.60038/2018 was confirmed in Crl.A.No.25250/2022 by judgment and order dated 27.12.2023 by the Court of LXXII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent has failed to prove that the statutory legal notice issued to the petitioner was served. Postal track record would go to show that notice issued was not served on the petitioner. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Bhaskaran vs. Sankarana Vaidhyan Balan and Another - (1999) 7 SCC 510 and submits that without service of statutory notice on the accused, the prosecution initiated against him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N. I. Act, is bad in law. He submits that though respondent has stated that the cheque in question was issued towards partial liability, no material was produced before the Trial Court to show the actual liability of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10370 CRL.RP No. 336 of 2024 petitioner. He submits that the defence raised by the petitioner has not been properly appreciated by the Courts below and the cheque in question was issued as security during the course of business and not towards repayment of the amount due. The petitioner also had raised a defence before the Trial Court that the amount that was due to be paid by him was discharged and therefore, the blank cheques which were handed over by him to the respondent as security were returned and the said cheques were marked as Ex.D1 to D22. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has argued in support of the impugned judgment and order and has prayed to dismiss the petition. 7. The complainant in order to prove his case has examined its authorised signatory as PW1. Ex.P1 is the authorisation letter issued by the respondent/company to PW1. Ex.P2 is the cheque in question and Ex.P4, is the copy of the legal notice issued on behalf of the respondent. Ex.P6 is the postal cover in which the legal notice at Ex.P4 was forwarded. Perusal of Ex.P6 would go to show that there is a shara in the said document that 'addressee has refused' and therefore, the Trial Court was - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10370 CRL.RP No. 336 of 2024 fully justified in holding that the legal notice issued to the petitioner was deemed to have been served on him. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the postal track record would go to show that legal notice issued to the petitioner was not served, no such document was produced on behalf of the petitioner either before the Trial Court or before the Appellate Court. The signature of the petitioner found in Ex.P2, which is the cheque in question is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the cheque in question is drawn on the account of the petitioner maintained by him in Allahabad Bank, Yalahanka New Town Branch, Benglauru. Under the circumstances, there is a presumption that arises against the petitioner as provided under Section 139 read with Section 118 of the N. I. Act and unless the same is rebutted by the accused by putting forward a probable defence, he is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N. I. Act. 8. The complainant has proved the transaction between the petitioner and the respondent by producing Ex.P7 invoice statement and also Ex.P8 to 38, which are tax invoices. In - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10370 CRL.RP No. 336 of 2024 some of the tax invoices, the signature of DW1 is found and it appears that in some of the tax invoices, the representatives of DW1 have signed. Petitioner, who has raised a defence before the Trial Court that the cheque in question was issued as a security, has failed to probabilise such a defence. He has also not produced any material to show that the amount that was due to be paid by him was re-paid to the respondent and thereafter, Ex.D1 to D22, which were given as a security to the amount borrowed by the respondent were returned. 9. The judgment on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case since in the present case, the legal notice issued to the petitioner was returned with postal shara 'refused' and therefore, the Courts below were justified in holding that there was a deemed service of legal notice on the petitioner. It is also found that the notice was issued to the correct address of the petitioner in which he was served with summons from the Court. The petitioner had failed to rebut the presumption that arose against him by putting forward a probable defence. The Trial Court and the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10370 CRL.RP No. 336 of 2024 Appellate Court having appreciated the aforesaid aspects of the matter, were therefore fully justified in convicting the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N. I. Act. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the same. Even the order of sentence passed by the two courts is just and proportionate and does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE DN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41