- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25848 CRL.RP No. 1426 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1426 OF 2016 BETWEEN: 1. M/S SOVEREIGN DEVELOPERS AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD NO 16,S D COMPLEX. JALADARSHINI LAYOUT -NEAR B E L ROAD, BANGALORE – 560054 2. SRI DEEPAK KUMAR AGED 40 YEARS, SON OF SATHYA BRATH SINGH MANAGING DIRECTOR: SOVEREIGN DEVELOPERS & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD NO 16 & 17, SECOND FLOOR, S D COMPLEX, JALADARSHINI LAYOUT NEAR B E L ROAD, BANGALORE - 560054 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M R MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S E.S.I. CORPORATION SUB REGIONAL OFFICE BANGALORE NORTH (PEENYA) HARINI TOWERS, THIRD CROSS, Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25848 CRL.RP No. 1426 of 2016 THIRD MAIN, OFF RING ROAD, (NEAR F T I ) SECOND STAGE, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB YESHWANTHAPUR, BANGALORE – 560 022. REPRESENTED BY SRI N RANGANATHA SOCIAL SECURITY OFFICER, E S I CORPORATION BANGALORE – 560 023. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. V RANJINI, ADVOCATE FOR 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 HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT DATED 01.09.2016 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.1266/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE LIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL ADN S.J., BANGALORE AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 09.09.2015 PASSED IN C.C.NO.12753/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVII ACMM, BANGALORE BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE REVISION PETITION BY ACQUITTING THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER This revision petition is filed against the concurrent finding of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court. 2. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant while invoking the jurisdiction of the trial - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25848 CRL.RP No. 1426 of 2016 Court for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘N.I.’ Act for short), is that the complainant is the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred as ‘E.S.I’ short). The complaint is filed through Social Security Officer who is competent to file the complaint. It is allegation of the complainant that accused No.1 is a private limited company and accused No.2 is the Director of the accused No.1 Company. The Company of the accused is coming under the provisions of E.S.I Act and accused were under obligation to pay employee's contribution and the employer's contribution to the E.S.I. There was arrears of contribution from the accused to the tune of Rs.44,96,012/- from 01.04.2007 to 30.09.2011 (Rupees Forty four lakhs ninety six thousand and twelve only). To pay part of the said contribution, the accused issued subject matter of cheque dated 27.10.2013 for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and the same was presented on 08.11.2013 to the bank. On 09.11.2013, the cheque was - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25848 CRL.RP No. 1426 of 2016 dishonoured with an endorsement ‘account blocked’. Thereafter, legal notice was issued on 26.11.2013 which was served on accused on 29.11.2013. In spite of the demand, the accused fails to pay the cheque amount and hence, the complaint was filed. The trial Court has taken the cognizance and issued the process and secured the accused. In spite of service of summons also, the accused did not choose to pay the amount and hence complainant was examined before the trial Court and got marked 19 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.19 including the subject matter of cheque at Ex.P2, bank endorsement as Ex.P3, legal notice as Ex.P4 and so also postal acknowledgement as Ex.P5. 3. The trial Court considering the material on record comes to the conclusion that though document at Ex.D1 is marked i.e. a copy of order sheet in Criminal RP No.201/2015, the defence have not led any evidence. Further, it also comes to the conclusion that even blocking of the account also comes within the purview of Section - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25848 CRL.RP No. 1426 of 2016 138 of N.I. Act and hence, convicted and sentenced the accused for the said offence. Being aggrieved by the said order, the accused preferred an appeal in Crl.Appeal No.1266/2015. 4. The appellate Court also held vide order dated 01.09.2016 that the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and confirmed the judgment of the trial Court and comes to the conclusion that it does not require any interference. Further, it is contended that the subject matter of the cheque at Ex.P2 was issued towards the legal liability. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both Courts, the present revision petition is filed before this Court. 6. The main contention of the revision petitioner before this Court is that the cheque was not dishonoured at the instance of him and the same was at the instance of the respondent by blocking the same. The said aspect was not taken note of by the trial Court as well as the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25848 CRL.RP No. 1426 of 2016 appellate Court. The trial Court has fully ignored that the cheque as per Ex.P2 is fully typewritten and not filled by the revision petitioner, as the same was fully blank signed cheque as per Ex.P2, claiming that for security purpose in future events, the same was issued. 7. The counsel submits that the trial Court also committed an error in imposing the penalty of Rs.6,00,000/- as against the cheque amount of Rs.5,00,000/- which is exorbitant. He also submits that the proceedings against the revision petitioner is pending before the NCLT and admits that till date, the company is not yet taken over. However, he submits that the amount of liability which is payable in favour of the respondent also includes the cheque amount. Under the circumstances, there cannot be any conviction and sentence to the revision petitioner. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would suggest that the liability is towards the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25848 CRL.RP No. 1426 of 2016 legal liability and admittedly the amount was not paid and the same has taken note of by the trial Court as well as the appellate court. 9. He further contends that with regard to blocking of the cheque, it also attracts Section 138 of N.I. Act and the same is considered by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court. He also submits that while considering the issue between the parties on the very same ground cannot be agitated in the revision petition contending that the Cheque is dishonoured not at the instance of the revision petitioner and hence, no ground is made out. 10. Having heard the counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and also the counsel appearing for the respondent, it is not in dispute that the issuance of cheque at Ex.P2 and the same is admitted. The said cheque is also issued towards the discharge of the part of the legal liability that is payable towards the ESI amount which is also not in dispute. After the dishonour of cheque on - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25848 CRL.RP No. 1426 of 2016 09.11.2013, legal notice was issued and the same was served on accused. But the accused did not comply with the demand and hence cognizance was taken against the accused. Even though counsel submits that matter is seized before the NCLT, it is not a ground to escape from the clutches of this Court with regard to the dishonour of cheque is concerned i.e., by blocking of the account and the same also attracts Section 138 of N.I.Act. This aspect was considered by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court. When the liability is not disputed, issuance of Cheque, dishonour of Cheque are also not disputed and even when the matter is pending before the NCLT so also the submission of the counsel that the amount of liability is also included in the cheque amount are not a ground to interfere. 11. To exercise the revision jurisdiction of this Court and when the scope of revision is very limited, then the Court has to consider whether the order passed by the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25848 CRL.RP No. 1426 of 2016 trial Court as well as the appellate Court suffers from its legality and correctness. 12. Having considered the material on record and in view of the admission that there was a liability and cheque was issued so also the same was not honoured, I do not find any error on the part of trial Court and appellate Court on the ground of legality and correctness. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit the revision and to the finding of the trial Court on the ground of legality and correctness and thus, the revision petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 67