- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3398 CRL.RP No. 232 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 232 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. KUMARA, PROPRIETOR AND AURHTORISED SIGNATORY OF M/S S S PHARMA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, SHOP NO 3 AND 4, K NO 1153, OPP THANVI TRISHA KALYANA MANTAPA, CHIKKA HONNENAHALLI VILLAGE, HARALIHALLI G P, KASBA HOBLI, HASSAN - 573 202. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NEHRU P, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S MONNU PHARMA, REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SMT CHANDRAKALA, W/O MADHAV KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, NO 32, 1ST FLOOR, K K PALAZA, 3RD MAIN HANUMANTHANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 019. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. BALARAJ A C, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3398 CRL.RP No. 232 of 2023 THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ENTIRE IMPUGNED ORDER AND JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED VI ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND A.C.M.M., AT BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.21779/2017 DATED 31.10.2019 AND THE ORDER OF JUDGMENT DATED 27.12.2022, PASSED BY LEARNED LXVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, (C.C.H.69) IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2465/2019. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER Petitioner is before this Court under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.PC with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.21779/2017 by the Court of VI Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City dated 31.10.2019 and the judgment and order dated 27.12.2022 passed in Crl.A.No.2465/2019 by the Court of LXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3398 CRL.RP No. 232 of 2023 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Respondent herein had initiated proceedings against the petitioner herein for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (herein after referred as 'N.I.Act'), before the Court of the VI Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City in C.C.No.21779/2017. It is the specific case of the respondent/complainant, who is a wholesale dealer in medicines that he had supplied medicines on credit basis to the accused and towards the amount due, the cheque- in-question for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) was issued by the petitioner and on presentation of the same, the drawee Bank had dishonored the cheque-in- question with the endorsement 'Insufficient Fund'. Subsequently, a legal notice was issued on behalf of the complainant to the petitioner. In spite of service of notice, the petitioner had failed to repay the amount covered under the cheque-in-question and it is under this - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3398 CRL.RP No. 232 of 2023 circumstances, proceedings were initiated by the respondent against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act before the Court of the VI Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City in C.C.No.21779/2017. 4. The petitioner, in response to the summons received from the Trial Court in C.C.No.21779/2017, appeared before the Court and pleaded not guilty. To substantiate the case of the complainant PW.1-Sukharam M was examined before the Trial Court and twenty documents were got marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.20. On behalf of the defence, DW.1 was examined and two document were got marked as Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2. The Trial Court after hearing the argument addressed on both sides had convicted the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and sentenced him to pay fine amount of Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Thousand only) and in default, to undergo simple - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3398 CRL.RP No. 232 of 2023 imprisonment for a period of two months. The said judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.21779/2017 was confirmed by the Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.2465/2019 by judgment and order dated 27.12.2022. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that cheque-in-question was issued as a security during the course of business transaction. The same was misused by the complainant and a false proceedings was initiated against the petitioner. Accordingly, he prays to allow this petition. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent has argued in support of the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence and has prayed to dismiss the petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3398 CRL.RP No. 232 of 2023 7. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that there was a business transaction between the respondent/complainant and the petitioner. The respondent is carrying on wholesale business of medicines and records produced would go to show that medicine was supplied to the petitioner on credit basis. To prove the transaction between the parties, the complainant had produced invoices and bank account statements of the accused which are marked as Ex.P.7 to Ex.P.12 and Ex.P.19 respectively. To show that the medicines were being supplied to the petitioner, lorry receipts have been produced and marked as Ex.P.13 to Ex.P.18. 8. PW.1 who is the General Power of Attorney (in short 'GPA') holder of the complainant, was examined and the copy of the GPA was produced as Ex.P.1. The cheque- in-question was produced as Ex.P.2 and the cheque return memo was produced as Ex.P.3. The copy of the legal notice which was served on the petitioner was produced as Ex.P.4. The signature found on the cheque has not been - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3398 CRL.RP No. 232 of 2023 disputed by the petitioner, nor has it been disputed that the cheque was drawn on the bank account maintained by him in Kotak Mahindra Bank, Salagame Road, Hassan Branch. Therefore, a presumption arises against the petitioner as provided under Section 139 read with Section 118 of the N.I.Act. Unless, the petitioner successfully rebuts the said presumption by putting forward a probable defence, he is liable to be held guilty for offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act. 9. The petitioner had set up a defence before the Trial Court that the cheque-in-question was issued as security during the course of business transaction. Therefore, it is apparent that issuance of cheque-in- question is not in dispute and the signature found on the cheque-in-question was also not in dispute. Except for the oral evidence of DW.1, there is no other material produced by the petitioner, so as to substantiate his defence that the cheque-in-question was issued as security during the business transaction. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3398 CRL.RP No. 232 of 2023 10. On the other hand, the complainant has proved the transaction between the parties by producing necessary documents and PW.1 has also deposed about the transaction between the parties and also the amount due from the petitioner as per the ledger account extract maintained by the complainant during the course of business. Since, the petitioner had not successfully rebutted the presumption that arose against him, the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court are justified in convicting the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment and order of conviction. Even the sentence imposed by the Courts below is just and proportionate and does call for any interference. Under these circumstances, I do not find merit in this petition. Accordingly, this Criminal revision petition is dismissed. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3398 CRL.RP No. 232 of 2023 11. Amount deposited by the petitioner before the Trial Court, if any, is permitted to be withdrawn by the respondent/complainant. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KVR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42