- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13584 CRL.RP No. 493 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 493 OF 2021 BETWEEN: 1. MR. SUNDARESAN AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS PROP OF M/S SUN EXPORTS S/O SRI THYAGARAJAN NO.26, SHREE SHREE NILAYA 5TH MAIN, 7TH CROSS INDIRA GANDHI STREET A NARAYANAPURA EXTENSION DOORAVANINAGAR BANGALORE-560096 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R.B. SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S ADANI ENTERPRISES LIMITED REP BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER AND AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL MR A VASUDEVAN OFFICE AT ADANI HOUSE SHRIMALI SOCIETY MITHAKHALI SIX ROAD NAVARANGAPUYRA AHMEDABAD GUJARAT BRANCH OFFICE AT NO.402/2, T-4 3RD FLOOR, SWASTIK MANADI ARCADE Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13584 CRL.RP No. 493 of 2021 S C ROAD, SHESHADRIPURAM BENGALURU - 560 020 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B. PRAMOD, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENTS DELIVERED BY THE LEARNED LXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE IN CRL.A.NO.827/2015 DATED 02.02.2021 WHEREIN THE COURT CONFIRMED JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED XXI ACMM, BANGALORE DATED 01.06.2015 IN C.C.NO.50467/2010. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.R.B.Sadasivappa, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.B.Pramod, learned counsel for the respondent / complainant. 2. The accused suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.50467/2010 confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.827 of 2015, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13584 CRL.RP No. 493 of 2021 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act') and ordered to pay fine of Rs.25,01,865/- of which sum of Rs.24,91,865/- as compensation to the complainant and balance sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the defraying expenses of the State, is the revision petitioner. 3. Facts in the nutshell, which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: 3.1 A complaint came to be lodged under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. 3.2 In the complaint, it has been contented that accused entered into contract with the complainant on 24.12.2007 for supply of 50,000 wet metric tonnes of iron ore fines at the price of Rs.3,065/- per metric tonne. As per the terms of the contract, complainant made 100% payment in advance in a sum of Rs.15,32,50,000/- and the same has been acknowledged by the accused. As against the amount received, accused could only supply 49,040 metric tonnes of the materials and there was a shortfall of 960 metric tonne of the material, which was confirmed by the accused by later dated - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13584 CRL.RP No. 493 of 2021 31.03.2008 and towards the value of the shortfall of 960 metric tonne material, he issued a cheque bearing No.503832 dated 08.02.2010 for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. 3.3 For the balance sum of Rs.24,91,865/-, he issued another cheque bearing No.503858 on 17.04.2010 drawn on State Bank of Mysore, which on presentation came to be dishonored with an endorsement "insufficient funds". Statutory notice as is contemplated under Section 138B of the Act came to be issued, which was duly served on the accused, which was replied but was not complied. As such, action was sought for by the complainant against the accused. 3.4 Learned Trial Magistrate after completing the necessary formalities summoned the accused and recorded the plea. Accused pleaded not guilty, therefore, trial was held. 3.5 In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant got examined an authorized officer of the complainant company by name Vasudevan himself as PW1 and placed on record 22 documents, which were exhibited and marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P22 comprising of authorization letter, contract dated 24.12.2007, letter dated 26.12.2007, dishonour - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13584 CRL.RP No. 493 of 2021 cheque, bank endorsement, Form H, endorsement, RPAD, copy of the legal notice, RPAD acknowledgment, Speed post acknowledgment and reply issued by the accused and the complainant. 3.6 As against the material evidence placed on record, accused got examined himself as DW1 and placed on record 7 documents comprising of letter of MML, invoices, copy of notice, postal receipt, postal acknowledgement, delivery order copy. 3.7 Learned Trial Magistrate on cumulative consideration of the material evidence placed on record by the parties, heard the arguments of the parties and convicted the accused and sentenced as referred to supra. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.827 of 2015. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the record, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on re-appreciation of the material evidence on record, did not find any good grounds to interfere with the judgment of the Trial Magistrate, convicting the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13584 CRL.RP No. 493 of 2021 accused and dismissed the appeal by considered judgment dated 02.02.2021. 3.8 Thereafter, accused is before this Court by way of this revision petition. 4. Sri.R.B.Sadasivappa, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition would vehemently contend that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence on record and Ex.D7, which is the delivery note, makes it clear that there was no shortfall and whatever the shortfall was there has been negotiated between the parties and a cheque in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was issued, which was encashed by the complainant and therefore, the order of conviction is bad in law and sought for allowing the revision petition. 5. Per contra, Sri.Pramod B., learned counsel for the respondent / complainant supports the impugned judgments. 6. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material law on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material law on record, it is crystal clear that - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13584 CRL.RP No. 493 of 2021 Ex.P14 - cheque belongs to the accused and signature found therein is that of the accused. 7. According to the complainant, towards the shortfall of the supply of the 960 metric tonne of the iron ore fines, there was an acknowledgment by the accused on 31.03.2008 and towards the part payment of the value of the shortfall, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was issued by cheque bearing No.503832 and for the balance amount of Rs.24,91,865/-, another cheque bearing No.503858 dated 17.04.2010 came to be issued. Admittedly the said cheque is marked at Ex.P14, which came to be dishonored with an endorsement "funds insufficient". 8. Taking note of the fact that there was an acknowledgment that there is a shortfall of 960 metric tonne material as per the acknowledgment dated 31.03.2008. The complainant has established that the cheque was issued towards the legally recoverable debt. 9. The contentions urged on behalf of the accused that the entire shortfall has been negotiated and an encashment of Rs.2,00,000/- towards the shortfall of the supply of the material has cleared the transactions between the complainant - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13584 CRL.RP No. 493 of 2021 and accused cannot be countenanced in law in view of the acknowledgment dated 31.03.2008. Accordingly, the learned Trial Magistrate was justified in convicting the accused and sentencing the accused as aforesaid. 10. Learned judge in the First Appellate Court after re- appreciation of the material evidence on record in the light of the appeal grounds, rightly dismissed the appeal of the accused. 11. This Court having regard to concurrent findings, that too in the revisional jurisdiction does not find any good grounds to interfere with the well-reasoned judgments of both the Courts. 11. Accordingly, the following: O R D E R Revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22