- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5263 CRL.RP No. 164 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 164 OF 2020 BETWEEN: ABDUL KAREEM S/O ABOOBAKKAR AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT PARAMBIL PEDIKAYIL HOUSE THIRIKKANAPURAM MALAPURAM - 679 582. …PETITIONER (BY SRI LETHIF B, ADV.) AND: 1. M/S ZODIAC CLOTHING CO LTD A COMPANY INCORPORATION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NYLOC HOUSE, NO.254, D-2, DR. ANNIE BESANT ROAD WORLI MUMBAI - 400 030. BRANCH OFFICE AT:NO.218 ANTINITE BUILDING, HRBR LAYOUT KALYAN NAGAR, 3RD BLOCK KAMANAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 078 REP. BY GPA HOLDER MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. ARUNA BHAT, ADV., FOR SRI AJAY T, ADV.) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF CRL.A.NO.791/2019 DATED 09.12.2019 PASSED BY THE LXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-68) AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5263 CRL.RP No. 164 of 2020 23.08.2018 PASSED IN C.C.NO.1728/2017 BY THE XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE REVISION PETITION AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. Accused No.2 is before this Court in this revision petition filed under Section 397 R/w 401 of Cr.P.C, with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.1728 of 2017 by the Court of XXV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru dated 23.08.2018 and the judgment and order dated 09.12.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.791 of 2019 by the Court of LXVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. Respondent herein had initiated proceedings against the petitioner, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'N.I. Act) before the Court of XXV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in C.C.No.1728 of 2017. It is the case of the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5263 CRL.RP No. 164 of 2020 respondent / complainant that the petitioner / accused had purchased readymade garments from the respondent / company on credit basis and towards repayment of the amount due had issued Cheque No.338810 dated 03.11.2016 for a sum of Rs.44,288/- in favour of the complainant / Company drawn on State Bank of India, Edappal District Branch, Mallapuram, Kerala. The said cheque on presentation for realisation was dishonoured and thereafter a statutory notice was issued on behalf of the complainant to the petitioner, which was duly served. In spite of service of notice, the petitioner had not repaid the amount covered under the cheque in question and therefore the respondent initiated proceedings against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The petitioner, who had appeared before the Trial Court in response to the summons issued to him in C.C.No.1728 of 2017 had claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate the case of the complainant, N Manjunath, who is the authorized representative of the respondent was examined as PW1 and six documents were got marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. On behalf of the defence, no oral or - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5263 CRL.RP No. 164 of 2020 documentary evidence was placed on record. The Trial Court, after hearing the arguments addressed on both sides, by the impugned judgment and order, had convicted the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I Act and sentenced the petitioner to pay fine of ₹.49,288/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months. The said judgment and order of conviction and sentence has been confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.791 of 2019. It is under these circumstances, petitioner is before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that Courts below have failed to properly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence available and have erred in convicting the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has argued in support of impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence and prays to dismiss the petition. 7. The complainant in order to prove its case against the accused has examined its authorized representative as - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5263 CRL.RP No. 164 of 2020 PW1. Ex.P1 is the certified copy of the power of attorney issued to PW1 by the complainant. The cheque in question is produced as Ex.P2. The cheque return memo is produced as Ex.P3. It is not in dispute that statutory notice was served on the accused after the cheque in question was dishonored by the drawee bank. The signature found in the cheque in question and the fact that the cheque was drawn on the account maintained by the accused in the State Bank of India, Mallapuram, Kerala is also not in dispute. Therefore, there is a presumption available against the accused as provided under Section 139 R/w Section 118 of N.I. Act. Unless the accused successfully rebut the said presumption by placing probable defence in his favour, the accused is liable to be punished for offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. 8. In the present case the accused has not put forward any defence. Therefore, the presumption that arose against the accused, as aforesaid, stood unrebutted. Under the circumstances, the Courts below were fully justified in convicting the accused nos.1 and no. 2 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Even the order of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5263 CRL.RP No. 164 of 2020 sentence passed against the petitioner herein cannot be said to be harsh or disproportionate. Therefore, I do not find any good ground to entertain this petition. 9. Accordingly, criminal revision petition is dismissed Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NMS