- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34282 CRL.RP No. 396 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 396 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. J. RAMESH, S/O. LATE GOPALACHAR AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO.104, GOKUL LAKE VIEW APARTMENT, 2ND MAIN, 6TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU 560 070. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BHADRAVADI SIDDESWARA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S. LAKSHMI PRECIOUS JEWELLERY PVT LTD., NO.1/18, 11TH MAIN, 4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 560 011, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI B RAJAGOPAL NAIDU …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAGHUNATH C M,ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER/JUDGEMENT DTD 31.12.2025 PASSED BY THE LIX ADDL. PRL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.149/2024 CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND SENTENCE DTD 29.12.2023 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE XXVIII ACMM, BENGALURU IN CC.NO.17213/2019 BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE RP.I.A.NO.1/2026 FOR SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34282 CRL.RP No. 396 of 2026 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER This matter is listed for admission. 2. Heard the counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. 3. The case of the complainant before the trial Court are that the complainant is a registered private company registered under the Companies Act and has been doing retail trading of gold and other precious jewellery. The Managing Director of the company is representing on behalf of the company. The accused is a Chartered Accountant by profession and he was giving professional services to the complainant. It is further stated in a transaction and settlement taken place between the complainant and the accused, he is liable to pay an amount of Rs.1,13,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore thirteen lakhs only) to the complainant. Therefore, the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34282 CRL.RP No. 396 of 2026 accused has failed to keep up his promise in paying the said amount as agreed by him. As such, the complainant filed a private complaint against the accused in PCR No. 986/2017 before the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore and the same was referred to the Jayanagar Police for investigation. Subsequently, based on the said complaint, the Jayanagar police registered a fire on the accused in PCR No.986/2017 for an offence punishable under Section 406, 420, 405, 450 and 425 of IPC. During the course of investigation, by the intervention of the friends and well-wishers, the accused agreed to settle the case amicably and accordingly has agreed to pay the amount of Rs.1,00,000,000/- (Rupees One crore only) to the complainant towards the final settlement. Further, the accused agreed to pay the said amount within 2 years, as he need time to mobilize the funds. Accordingly, the accused had issued two cheques for Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty lakhs only) each and both the cheques were drawn on Indian Bank, Sheshadripuram Branch, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34282 CRL.RP No. 396 of 2026 Bangalore, in favour of the complainant by instructing him to present the said cheques for encashment in the month of February,2019 by filling the date on the said cheques. 4. It is further stated in the month of February, 2019 when the complainant contacted the accused for payment, the accused had instructed the complainant to present the said cheques for encashment by filling the dates on the said cheques as 14.02.2019. As per the instructions of the accused, the complainant had presented the cheques and the same are returned with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’ in the account of the accused. Thereafter, the complainant issued legal notice on 12.03.2019 through RPAD and the same was served and no reply was given. Hence, the complaint was filed against the revision petitioner and cognizance was taken. The accused was secured and he did not plead guilty and claims trial. 5. In order to prove his case, the complainant is examined as P.W.1 and got marked 12 documents as - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34282 CRL.RP No. 396 of 2026 Exs.P1 to P12. P.W.1 was subjected to cross examination and the accused was subjected to recording of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., but not led any defence evidence before the trial Court. The trial Court taking note of the evidence available on record comes to the conclusion that the accused had issued the cheques at Exs.P5 and P6 towards the discharge of liability. The said cheque was bounced and in spite of legal notice was given, the accused did not comply the same and not given any reply. Therefore, the trial Court considering the evidence of P.W.1, comes to the conclusion that no rebuttal evidence is adduced by the accused and also the accused has not made out any preponderance of probabilities to substantiate his case. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellant has preferred an appeal before the appellate Court and the appellate Court also on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence and also considering the evidence of P.W.1, since the appellant was not disputed the subject matter of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34282 CRL.RP No. 396 of 2026 Cheques at Exs.P5 and P6 and nothing is elicited with regard to liability of P.W.1 during the course of cross- examination and also drawn adverse inference in favour of the accused by drawing an adverse inference of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 that when the cheque was issued, admitting its liability and confirm the judgment of the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the judgments of both Courts, the revision petitioner is before this Court in the present revision. 6. The counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would vehemently contend that there was no any legally enforceable debt in favour of the complainant and the trial Court and the appellate Court ought to have invoked Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘N.I.Act’). The trial Court has grossly erred in considering the evidence of P.W.1 and there is a material irregularity in considering the case. The alleged liability of Rs.1,00,00,000/- arising out of an unsubstantiated and disputed settlement has - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34282 CRL.RP No. 396 of 2026 been accepted by the Courts below. When there was no liability, the question of involving the legal liability does not arise. 7. The counsel also vehemently contends that cheques were obtained in the police station when the private complaint was registered, that too during the investigation. The counsel also admits that both the Courts have failed to consider the said fact into consideration. The counsel also brought to notice of the admissions on the part of P.W.1 wherein he has categorically admitted that there was no loan transaction. It is also contented that cheques are given for the purpose of security. When the transaction was taken place between the complainant and also the Geethanjali jewelers that there was an agreement between the parties and also he categorically admits that after the registration of PCR only, the accused gave those two cheques. When such admissions are available before the Court and there is no - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34282 CRL.RP No. 396 of 2026 any legally recoverable debt, the question of invoking Section 138 of the N.I.Act does not arise. 8. Per contra, the counsel for respondent would contend that this accused was a chartered accountant and he was taking care of the business transaction of the complainant and when there was a mis-utilization of the fund of the complainant and he is liable to the tune of Rs.1,13,00,000/- and he had categorically admitted that when the case was registered against him that he is liable to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/-. Further, the counsel also brought to notice of this Court the document at Ex.P4 i.e. charge sheet wherein the accused had given two cheques for an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- each and in view of the settlement of the parties, the accused admitted his liability to an amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/-. For that, he had issued two cheques and due to issuance of these two cheques only, the B report was filed before the Court in terms of Ex.P4. Now he cannot contend that he was not liable to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34282 CRL.RP No. 396 of 2026 and the contention that the same was not a legally recoverable debt cannot be accepted. The counsel also admits that the legal notice was issued in terms of Ex.P7 and the same was acknowledged in terms of Ex.P8 and no reply was given. And now only a technical objection is raised before this Court that there was no any liability. Hence, the question of entertaining this revision does not arise. 9. Having heard the counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and also the counsel appearing for respondent so also the material available before this Court, it is the specific case of the complainant that the complainant was looking after the business of M/s. Lakshmi Precious Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. and the accused was working as chartered accountant in the company of the complainant and there was a liability on the part of the accused to the tune of Rs.1,13,00,000/- and when the accused did not repay the amount, a separate complaint was filed and PCR was registered before the Court and the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34282 CRL.RP No. 396 of 2026 matter was referred to investigation. Thereafter, when the matter was under investigation, this accused admitted his liability and issued two cheques and issuance of two cheques is not disputed. With regard to the liability of cheque now the counsel contend that the same is not legally enforceable debt, but the fact is that he has issued the cheques. Exs.P5 and P6 are not disputed. When there is a legal presumption in favour of the complainant that those two cheques are issued in favour of the liability and the same are to have been rebutted by the accused by producing evidence or for effective cross examination. But no such attempt is made by the accused. During the course of cross examination of D.W.1 no doubt, he categorically admitted that he has issued the subject matter of cheques towards liability. But it is a specific case of complainant that in respect of his liability he had issued the cheques. But the issuance of cheques and signature are not disputed and even the legal notice was issued in respect of these two cheques towards the liability is - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34282 CRL.RP No. 396 of 2026 concerned and the same was presented and dishonored. No reply was given by the accused. During the course of cross-examination of P.W.1, it is suggested that there was no liability and the same was denied by P.W.1 in the cross-examination and during the course of cross- examination of P.W.1, he denied the suggestion that he had not issued the two cheques towards the liability. The only answer elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 that these two cheques are given after the initiation of the proceedings against him by filing a private complaint and the fact that this petitioner has issued two cheques in terms of Exhibit P4, it is very clear that when the case was registered against him, he had issued the subject matter of the cheques. In terms of the settlement, only Exhibit P4 was filed and the document of Ex.P4 is also very clear. When such being the case, all these factors were considered by the trial Court and the trial Court, on considering the evidence as well as on re-appreciation of evidence, also by considering the statement under Section - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34282 CRL.RP No. 396 of 2026 313 of Cr.P.C. of the accused, he categorically admitted the issuance of two cheques. And also even cheques are dishonored with the endorsement ‘Funds insufficient’. But, in 313 statement, he did not mention anything that he was not able to pay in respect of these two cheques are concerned. When the cheques are admitted and after the issuance of the cheques only, the B report was filed and the same is not disputed by the revision petitioner. The very contention of the revision petitioner that both the Courts have committed an error cannot be accepted. Further, the very contention that the cheques are not issued in respect of legally recoverable debt cannot be accepted once he categorically admits the liability and issuance of cheques in favour of the complainant and when there is no dispute with regard to the issuance of cheque and signature so also filing of the B report after the issuance of these two cheques and the same is marked as Ex.P4 and the very contention of the revision petitioner counsel cannot be accepted. Hence, I do not find any - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34282 CRL.RP No. 396 of 2026 ground to admit the revision and accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38