- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4605 CRL.RP No. 643 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 643 OF 2018 BETWEEN: MR. NEERAJ SRIVASTAVA S/O MR. H.C. SRIVASTAVA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS NO. G-3/4, PLATINUM CITY HMT ROAD, GORGUNTEPALYA YESHWANTHPURA POST BANGALORE - 560 022. …PETITIONER (BY SRI S.R. SREEPRASAD, ADV.) AND: M/S VENKATESHWARA ENGINEERING WORKS # 12/1, NO.10, GURU NANJUNDAIAH INDUSTRAL AREA, LAKSHMIPURA MAIN ROAD CHIKKABANAVAR POST ABBIGERE BANGALORE - 560 090 REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR. MURTHY P. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI M.B. CHANDRA CHOODA, ADV.) THIS CRL.RP 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 JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 06.05.2017 IN C.C.NO.18900/2016 PASSED BY THE XII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU, CONFIRMED IN CRL.A.NO.843/2017 ON THE FILE OF LXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE ON 31.03.2018 BY ALLOWING THE REVISION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4605 CRL.RP No. 643 of 2018 ORAL ORDER 1. Accused is before this Court in this revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to set-aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in CC No.18900/2016 dated 06.05.2017 by the Court of XII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru and the judgment and order passed in Crl.A.No.843/2017 by the Court of LXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, dated 31.03.2018. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Respondent herein had initiated proceedings against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the N. I. Act' for short) in CC No.18900/2016. It is the specific case of the respondent that he is doing the business of engineering and fabrication work. Petitioner is the Director of a Company known as M/s. Base Vibration Isolators Private Limited and respondent/complainant had done fabrication work in the Company of the petitioner. After the work was completed, towards partial payment of the outstanding dues of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4605 CRL.RP No. 643 of 2018 Rs.12,74,124/-, the petitioner had issued the cheque in question dated 29.12.2014 for a sum of Rs.6,37,062/- bearing No.551273 drawn on State Bank of India, Shivaji Nagar Branch, Bengaluru, in favour of the respondent. The said cheque on presentation for realization was dishonoured with shara 'account closed'. Thereafter, respondent/complainant had got issued a legal notice to the petitioner which was duly served on the petitioner. In spite of service of notice, petitioner had failed to repay the amount covered under the cheque in question and therefore, the respondent had initiated proceedings against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N. I. Act. In response to the summons received in CC No.18900/2016, the petitioner had appeared before the Trial Court and claimed to be tried. To substantiate his case, respondent had examined himself as PW1 before the Trial Court and got marked nine documents as Ex.P1 to P9. On behalf of the defence, no oral or documentary evidence was placed on record. The Trial Court after hearing the arguments addressed on both sides vide the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 06.05.2017 convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4605 CRL.RP No. 643 of 2018 N. I. Act and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.7,25,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The said judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in CC No.18900/2016 has been confirmed by the Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.843/2017 by judgment and order dated 31.03.2018. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that the petitioner has no privity of contract with the respondent. The respondent has done work in the office of the company i.e., M/s. Base Vibration Isolators Private Limited, of which petitioner was only a Director. The cheque in question was issued as a security to the payment that was due by the Company. The said cheque was presented for realization even without notice to the petitioner. Both the Courts have failed to appreciate the aforesaid aspects of the matter and have erred in convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N. I. Act. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4605 CRL.RP No. 643 of 2018 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has argued in support of the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by both the Courts and submits that the cheque in question was issued by the petitioner on behalf of the Company of which he is a Director. Transaction between the parties has been proved by the respondent/complainant and the signature found in the cheque in question is not in dispute. Therefore, both Courts were justified in convicting the petitioner for the alleged offence. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. 6. It is the specific case of the respondent/complainant that the cheque in question was issued by the petitioner towards part payment of the amount due to him by the Company known as M/s. Base Vibration Isolators Private Limited, of which the petitioner is admittedly a Director. According to the respondent, Company was due to pay a total amount of Rs.12,74,124/- towards the engineering and fabrication work done by him in the Company. The work done by the respondent/complainant in the Company known as M/s. Base Vibration Isolators Private Limited is not disputed by the petitioner. Even otherwise, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4605 CRL.RP No. 643 of 2018 ledger account extract at Ex.P9 would evidence the transaction between the parties and total outstanding amount that was due by M/s. Base Vibration Isolators Private Limited. 7. According to the petitioner, the cheque in question was issued as a security to the said amount with instruction to the respondent/complainant not to present the said cheque for realization. It is also the further case of the petitioner that he had assured that the amount covered under the cheque in question would be paid in cash and the cheque issued was supposed to be taken back after payment of cash to the respondent. Undisputedly, no amount was paid either by the petitioner or by the Company to the respondent/complainant in respect of the work done by him for the Company of which the petitioner was a Director. It appears that it is under these circumstances, the cheque in question was presented for realization and the same was dishonoured by the drawee bank with shara 'account closed'. Immediately thereafter, statutory notice was got issued on 26.03.2015 and the notice was duly served on the petitioner on 27.03.2015. Receipt of statutory notice is not disputed by the petitioner. In the reply notice at - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4605 CRL.RP No. 643 of 2018 Ex.P7, the transaction between the respondent and the Company of which the petitioner is a Director is not disputed and on the other hand, the defence taken by him was that the cheque in question was issued as a security to the payment that was due by the Company to the respondent/complainant. Though such a defence was put forward by the petitioner in his reply, he has not substantiated the said defence by entering into witness box. He has also not examined any other witness in support of his defence nor got marked any document in support of his defence. 8. The issuance of the cheque in question by the petitioner to the respondent/complaint is not in dispute and the petitioner also has not disputed his signature found in the cheque in question. Under the circumstances, 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 convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N. I. Act. The law in this regard has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4605 CRL.RP No. 643 of 2018 K.N.BEENA VS. MUNIYAPPAN & ANOTHER - (2001) 8 SCC 458. 9. In the case of HITEN P. DALAL VS. BRATINDRANATH BANERJEE - AIR 2001 SC 3897, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the defence put forward by the accused should be probable and it is not sufficient if such a defence is plausible. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, having appreciated the aforesaid aspects of the matter, have rightly convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N. I. Act. Since the petitioner had failed to rebut the presumption that arose against him by putting forward a probable defence. The order of sentence passed against the petitioner is also just and proportionate. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the criminal revision petition lacks merits. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE DN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52