- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35885 CRL.RP No. 1042 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1042 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. M/S NEW OXFORED PHARMA PROPRIETOR: SRI KISHORE I S/O INDIA CHANDRA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT D.NO.10 KAIVALYA MARGA SIDDARTHE NAGARA MYSURU-570011 AND ALSO AT: J.L. SIDDARTHA MEDICALS SHOP NO.2, D.NO.482/1 9TH MAIN, VINAYAKA MARGA SIDDARTHANAGAR MYSURU-570 011. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S. RAMESH PHARMA REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI RAMESH S/O L. KRISHNA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT D.NO.44 Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35885 CRL.RP No. 1042 of 2022 LAKSHMI VILAS ROAD MYSURU CITY-570004. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SYED AKBAR PASHA, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.06.2022 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.269/2021 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN C.C.NO.231/2017 ON THE FILE OF VIII ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C,. MYSURU DATED 29.11.2021 BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE CRL.RP AND THEREBY ACQUIT THE ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 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 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This revision petition is filed against concurrent finding invoking Section 138 of N.I. Act and also confirmation of the order of the Trial Court by the First Appellate Court. 3. The factual matrix of case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that both the complainant and the accused are doing business. The accused is the customer of complainant - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35885 CRL.RP No. 1042 of 2022 firm as retail pharmaceuticals business and was purchasing the medical products and goods from the complainant since 2012. The accused had purchased the medical product from April 2013 to till 2015 for sum of Rs.9,72,000/- through various bills. But, the accused became a chronic defaulter in making payments resulting in accumulation of payments due to the complainant firm for the medical products supplied. When the complainant made repeated requests, he had postponed the payment and ultimately, he has issued the subject matter of Cheque. When the Cheque was presented, endorsement was issued that ‘account was closed’ on 17.11.2016. Hence, notice was issued and the same was acknowledged by the accused. But, not given any reply or made any payment. Therefore, complaint was filed, cognizance was taken and accused was secured before the Trial Court and he did not plead guilty and claims for trial. 4. The complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and mainly relies upon the document Exs.P1 to P17 and accused except cross-examining P.W.1, nothing is elicited from the mouth of D.W.1 with regard to the business is concerned. The - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35885 CRL.RP No. 1042 of 2022 only contention was taken that he was not due as claimed, but did not deny the ledger extracts. The Trial Court considering the said material on record, convicted and sentenced the accused. 5. The order of the Trial Court is challenged before the First Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.269/2021 and the First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of evidence, particularly taking note of defence which was taken and also admission on the part of D.W.1 comes to the conclusion that nothing is elicited, particularly in paragraph No.23, the First Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that entire cross-examination of P.W.1 is also not helpful to accept the defence as rebuttal evidence as contemplated under the provisions of N.I. Act and also taken note of the fact of clearing the due amount of Rs.9,72,000/- by the appellant firm remained without proof and it cannot be accepted that the appellant has issued the Cheque only as a security during 2012. The contents of the invoice produced by the appellant falsifies the defence of the appellant. Admittedly, the appellant has not issued reply notice and not adduced defence evidence and nothing prevented the appellant - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35885 CRL.RP No. 1042 of 2022 either to reply with proper defence of sale of appellant-firm on 17.10.2015 or to adduce evidence in that regard. Hence, comes to the conclusion that Trial Court has not committed any error and confirmed the order of the Trial Court. 6. In the present revision petition, the main contention of learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner is that both the Courts have committed an error and failed to appreciate the fact that complainant has failed to discharge the initial burden as envisaged under Section 118 and Section 139 of N.I. Act. The Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence elicited during the course of cross-examination of P.W.1. Admittedly, the firm was sold to the brother of the complainant, namely Mr. Murali K., who is running the said business. Inspite of the same, the complainant has deliberately initiated the proceedings, though the amount in question was adjusted while executing the sale understanding between the accused and the brother of the complainant. Though these factual aspects are brought to notice of the Courts below, without considering the same, the Courts below, in gross negligence and wrong appreciation of evidence, have - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35885 CRL.RP No. 1042 of 2022 mechanically proceeded to convict the accused. Hence, it requires interference of this Court. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would vehemently contend that the Trial Court taken note of particularly the Cheque-Ex.P1 and acknowledgment was not denied and also that no legal notice as per Ex.P3 was served and Exs.P8 and P9 are the acknowledgments and Exs.P13 to P17 are the ledger extracts for the year from 2012 to 2017 till filing of the complaint and Exs.P13 to P17-ledger extracts were not seriously disputed by the accused and though contend that the balance amount was adjusted when the firm was sold in favour of brother of the complainant and the same is not substantiated and when an attempt was made before the First Appellate Court to substantiate the same and the same is also not accepted by the Trial Court. 8. Now, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner mainly relies upon I.A.No.2/2022, wherein prayer is sought for production of additional documents to support his case i.e. sale of business vide agreement dated 17.10.2015, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35885 CRL.RP No. 1042 of 2022 application for change in constitution dated 11.11.2015 and communication dated 07.04.2016. The counsel referring these documents would contend that these documents are very clear that already the very unit of the revision petitioner was sold in favour of brother of the complainant and sale consideration was also adjusted towards the amount and the Court has to take note of the same. 9. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent, particularly the documents which have been produced before this Court by filing an application along with the additional documents, no dispute with regard to the fact that there was transaction between the complainant and brother of the complainant for having purchased sale of business of the accused. On perusal of these document, nowhere, it is mentioned that payment amount was adjusted towards sale consideration. Hence, these documents cannot be entertained in the revision petition and the same were also not placed before the Trial Court. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35885 CRL.RP No. 1042 of 2022 10. With regard to the other aspect is concerned, the very specific case of complainant is that the petitioner was purchasing the medical product and also to substantiate the same, ledger extracts are produced before the Court and the same is not seriously disputed with regard to the balance amount is concerned and also not disputed the issuance of subject matter of Cheque Ex.P1 and also bouncing of Cheque and no reply was given by the revision petitioner when the notice was served and though an attempt was made before the Court to state that no notice was served. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that signature is not found and signature found in the postal acknowledgement is not of the revision petitioner and the same is not substantiated by placing any material before the Trial Court and even if the petitioner is disputing the signature in the Cheque, the same was also not sent to Handwriting Expert to substantiate the same. When such being the case, I do not find any error on the part of the Trial Court in appreciating both oral and documentary evidence as well as the evidence of P.W.1 and nothing is elicited with regard to his defence is concerned. Hence, no ground is made out to receive the additional - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35885 CRL.RP No. 1042 of 2022 documents as contented in I.A.No.2/2022 and also on appreciation of material available on record, it does not require any interference of this Court and the order not suffers from its legality and correctness. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, I.A.No.2/2022 is also dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57