- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23542 CRL.RP No. 7 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.7 OF 2022 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS) BETWEEN: SRI. SRINIVASALU S/O LATE GURUPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. TIRUMALA GLASS ENTERPRISES, NO.18, SATHYANARAYANA TEMPLE STREET, BANGALORE-560 008. …PETITIONER (BY SMT CHETHANA HEGDE FOR SRI NARAYANASWAMY.K.J, ADVOCATES) AND: M/S. EMMVEE PHOTOVOLATIC POWER PVT. LTD., HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.13/1, INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ROAD, BETTAHALSURU POST, BANGALORE-562 157. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.N.HARISH BABU, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 24.09.2018 PASSED BY THE LX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-61), BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.265/2018 PRODUCED HEREIN AS ANNEXURE-A AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 30.01.2018 PASSED BY THE XXVII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.25571/2015 PRODUCED HEREIN AS ANNEXURE-B AND Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23542 CRL.RP No. 7 of 2022 CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.25571/2015. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Smt.Chethana Hegde, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Narayanaswamy K.J., and Sri K. N. Harishbabu, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction dated 30.01.2018 in C.C.No.25571/2015, on the file of XXVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 265/2018, dated 24.09.2018, on the file of LX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 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 private complaint under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure came to be filed with the jurisdictional - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23542 CRL.RP No. 7 of 2022 Magistrate alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act contending that accused being the dealer in toughened glass had business transaction with the complainant and towards the partial liability of the supply of toughened glass, a cheque bearing No.000066, dated 06.06.2015 in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was issued. Said cheque on presentation came to be dishonored with an endorsement “Funds Insufficient”. 4. Legal notice was issued and there was no compliance to the callings of notice. Therefore, action was sought. 5. Learned Trial Magistrate, after completing the necessary formalities, summoned the accused and recorded the plea. Accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trial was held. 6. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant got examined himself as PW1 and placed on record seven documents namely, dishonoured cheque, bank endorsement, Legal notice, postal receipt, reply notice, and statement of account. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23542 CRL.RP No. 7 of 2022 7. As against the material evidence placed on record by the complainant, accused got examined himself as DW1. 8. Later on, the learned Trial Magistrate heard the arguments of the parties in detail and convicted the accused and sentenced as under: “The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed. Acting U/s.255(2) of Cr.PC, the accused is convicted for the offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I.Act and sentence him to pay fine of Rs.1,25,000/-. In default of payment of said fine amount, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Three months. Out of the said fine amount ordered to pay Rs.1,20,000/- to the complainant as compensation and the remaining amount of Rs.5,000/- shall go to the state.” 9. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.265/2018. 10. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and dismissed the appeal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23542 CRL.RP No. 7 of 2022 11. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court in this revision. 12. Smt. Chethana Hegde, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Narayanaswamy K.J., contended that both the Courts have wrongly convicted the accused and sought for allowing the revision of petition. 13. She would further contend that very complaint itself is not maintainable as the accused being a partnership firm, the frame of the complaint is incorrect and in that regard she placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jitendra Vora vs. Bhavana Y Shah and others, Criminal Appeal No.1001/2010 and invited the attention of this Court to paragraphs 9 and 10 which reads as under: “9. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and we have perused the evidence placed before us. From a bare reading of Section 138 of the NI Act, the first and foremost essential ingredient for attracting a liability under this Section is that the person who is to be made liable should be the drawer of the cheque and should have drawn the cheque on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for discharge, in whole or part, of any debt or other - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23542 CRL.RP No. 7 of 2022 liability. In this context, this Court in the case of Krishna Texport and Capital Markets Ltd. v. Ila A. Agrawal & Ors, (AIR 2015 SC 2091), has held as under- The notice under Section 138 is required to be given to the ‘drawer’ of the cheque so as to give the drawer an opportunity to make the payment and escape the penal consequences. No other person is contemplated by Section 138 as being entitled to be issued such notice. The plain language of Section 138 is very clear and leaves no room for any doubt or ambiguity. There is nothing in Section 138 which may even remotely suggest the issuance of notice to anyone other than the drawer. The learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the case of Anil Hada v. Indian Acrylic Ltd., (2000) 1 SCC 1, wherein this Court held – Normally an offence can be committed by human beings who are natural persons. Such offence can be tried according to the procedure established by law. But there are offences which could be attributed to juristic person also. If the drawer of a cheque happens to be a juristic person like a body corporate it can be prosecuted for the offence under Section 138 of the Act. Now there is no scope for doubt regarding that aspect in view of the clear language employed in Section 141 of the Act. In the expanded ambit of the word ‘company’ even - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23542 CRL.RP No. 7 of 2022 firms or any other associations of persons are included and as a necessary adjunct thereof a partner of the firm is treated as director of that company.” (Emphasis supplied) Thus when the drawer of the cheque who falls within the ambit of Section 138 of the Act is a human being or a body corporate or even firm, prosecution proceedings can be initiated against such drawer. In this context the phrase ‘as well as’ used in Sub-section (1) of Section 141 of the Act has some importance. The said phrase would embroil the persons mentioned in the first category within the tentacles of the offence on a par with the offending company. Similarly the words ‘shall also’ in Sub- section (2) are capable of bringing the third category persons additionally within the dragnet of the offence on an equal par. The effect of reading Section 141 is that when the company is the drawer of the cheque such company is the principal offender under Section 138 of the Act and the remaining persons are made offenders by virtue of the legal fiction created by the legislature as per the section. Hence the actual offence should have been committed by the company, and then alone the other two categories of persons can also become liable for the offence.” - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23542 CRL.RP No. 7 of 2022 14. Per contra, counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgments. 15. This Court has given its anxious consideration to rival contentions of the parties. 16. This Court noticed that the judgment relied on by the counsel for the revision petitioner in the case of Jitendra Vora as referred to supra is not applicable to the case on hand inasmuch as in the case on hand, in the complaint, the partnership firm is made as a party and accused is shown as managing partner. 17. Therefore, there is sufficient compliance as to the requirements. Moreover, Ex.P1 is signed by the present petitioner as authorized signatory for and on behalf of Tirumala Glass Enterprises. 18. Therefore, the principles of law enunciated in the case of Jitendra Vora supra is not applicable to the case on hand. 19. This would take this Court to merits of the revision petition. 20. Admittedly, there is a business transaction between the complainant and accused. Accused being the dealer of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23542 CRL.RP No. 7 of 2022 toughened glass used to purchase the toughened glass from the complainant as could be seen from Ex.P.7. Towards the repayment, said cheque has been issued is the case of the complainant. 21. On the contrary, accused has stated that a cheque which was given as security has been misused by the complainant while answering the question No.4, while recording the accused statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 22. If it is the case of the complainant that accused has misused that cheque, some positive action in the form of criminal complaint was required to be taken by the accused especially when the legal notice is replied with the aid of an Advocate. No such action is forthcoming on the part of the revision petitioner. 23. Therefore, the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner is rightly rejected by the learned Trial Magistrate while passing an order of conviction which has been rightly re- appreciated by the First Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal of the accused. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23542 CRL.RP No. 7 of 2022 24. Accordingly, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the grounds urged in the revision petition are hardly sufficient to interfere with the well-reasoned order of both the Courts. 25. As such, the following order is passed. ORDER Revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 59