- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:498 CRL.RP No. 1535 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1535 OF 2023 BETWEEN: M/S S S UDYOG, OFFICE AT NO.29 AND 31/1, RAJU BUILDING, 11TH CROSS, VYALIKAVAL, MALLESHWARAM, BESIDE MUNESHWARA SWAMY TEMPLE, BENGALURU - 560 003. (REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR / PARTNER V J TANUJ) ALSO AT M/S S.S.UDYOG, NO.15 CHIRANJEEVI LAYOUT, HEBBAL, KEMPAPURA, BENGALURU - 560 024. …PETITIONER [BY SRI CHANDRASHEKARA H.G., ADVOCATE] AND: GUNDEGOWDA C G., AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O CHIKKANNA, PROPRIETOR OF M/S MADHU ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTIONS, OFFICE AT NO.6, MADHU, II CROSS, NEAR HMT LAYOUT, NELAGADARANAHALLI, NAGASANDRA POST, BENGALURU - 560 073. …RESPONDENT [BY SRI BHOJARAJA, ADVOCATE] THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.08.2023 PASSED BY THE HONBLE LVI ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.95/2021 AND THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.02.2020 PASSED Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:498 CRL.RP No. 1535 of 2023 BY THE HONBLE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND XXVI A.C.M.M BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.21024/2016 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION IS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 04.12.2025, THIS DAY, THE COURT, PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CAV ORDER Challenging judgment dated 17.08.2023 passed by LVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-57), in Crl.A.no.95/2021 confirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.02.2020 passed by Small Causes and XXVI ACMM. Bengaluru, in C.C.no.21024/2016, this revision petition is filed. 2. Sri Chandrashekara HG, learned counsel for petitioner (accused) submitted that present proceedings arise out of private complaint filed by respondent (complainant) under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging that complainant was a Civil Contractor and accused had entrusted him civil works relating to 220 KV DC Transmission line at Somanahalli, Malur as agreed for Rs.32,00,000/- and though he completed erection of three towers within time as per award dated 13.05.2013, accused paid only Rs.30,50,000/- and retained Rs.1,50,000/-. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:498 CRL.RP No. 1535 of 2023 On 10.03.2015, one partner of accused namely, VJ Tanuj had entrusted another work for construction of 4th and Final tower for Rs.11,50,000/-, but accused paid Rs.8,00,000/- by cheque no.176837 and issued cheque no.176919 dated 05.04.2016 for 3,50,000/- drawn on Union Bank of India, Malleshwaram branch, Bengaluru towards partial balance, which even when presented twice returned dishonored with endorsement 'Funds insufficient and payment stopped by drawer' on 05.04.2016 and 02.07.2016. And demand notice got issued by complainant by RPAD and Speed Post returned with postal shara ‘door locked/not claimed’, establishing deemed service and accused failed to repay amount within time and thereby committed offence under Section 138 of NI Act. 3. It was submitted, on appearance accused denied charges and sought trial. Thereafter, complainant deposed as PW-1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P14. Thereafter, statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. after explaining incriminating material which he denied. Thereafter, accused led defence evidence examining himself as DW-1 and got marked Ex.D1. It was submitted, though he had setup - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:498 CRL.RP No. 1535 of 2023 defence that substantiated same, without appreciation of same, trial Court convicted accused. 4. It was submitted, before Appellate Court application for additional evidence filed by accused was allowed and Sri Raja C., was examined as DW-2. Though, deposition of DW-2 substantiated defence setup, without appreciation/re- appreciation dismissed appeal, leading to this revision petition. Hence, impugned judgments suffered from perversity calling for interference. 5. It was submitted, accused contended that Ex.P1 was issued for security purposes only till completion of work and accused denied issuance of cheque in question was towards legally enforceable debt; that complainant had not completed entrusted work and pending work was got completed by assigning it to DW-2; that complaint was not preceded by service of demand notice as mandated; complainant has not submitted invoice, work progress or any document for completion of entrusted work by him. Infact, PW-1 admitted in cross-examination that he did not produce any documents to show for completion of project. He also admitted that to be - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:498 CRL.RP No. 1535 of 2023 entitled for balance amount he was required to complete foundation, tower erection and stringing of line. This indicated that work was not completed therefore complainant would not be entitled for payments. Therefore, complaint was not tenable. It was further submitted, even after permitting accused to lead additional evidence and examination of DW-2 to corroborate Ex.D1, Appellate Court dismissed appeal by observing that accused had not led evidence, which would establish that impugned judgment was passed without appreciation of entire material. 6. It was submitted, PW-1 deposed that this was only his project from accused and claimed Exs.P13 and P14 are same work, but contradicted himself by stating that 2nd work was awarded after completion of 1st work. Said admission would cast doubt and upset presumption. On said ground sought for allowing revision petition. 7. On other hand, Sri Bhojaraja, learned counsel for complainant opposed petition by submitting that both Courts on proper appreciation of material on record, arrived at reasoned - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:498 CRL.RP No. 1535 of 2023 findings, leaving no scope for interference. On above grounds, sought dismissal of revision petition. 8. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgments and record. 9. From above, it is seen that revision petition is by accused challenging concurrent judgment convicting accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. Challenge is alleging perversity. 10. Insofar as first contention that even after allowing application for additional evidence and accused examining DW- 2 to corroborate Ex.D1, dismissal of appeal by Appellate Court by observing that accused had not led evidence, as being contrary to material on record, it is seen Ex.D1 is dated 02.09.2016 which is much later than transaction in question. In case, accused noted that complainant had failed to complete project, there would be document to substantiate same such as notice or order of termination of work award and entrustment of work. None are produced. On other hand, Ex.D1 produced is much after transaction in question. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:498 CRL.RP No. 1535 of 2023 11. Insofar as denial of issuance of Ex.P1 for discharge of legally enforceable debt, it is seen one of defences was about issuance of Ex.P1 – cheque as security purposes. Exs.P13 and P14 – work awards are not disputed. Total amount payable under same as well as amount of money paid as well as balance due is also not disputed. In absence of plea supported by documents about notifying complainant about failure to completed project, its termination and entrustment to DW-2, contention of Ex.P1 being issued as security would not be probabilized. Therefore, both Courts would be justified in basing order of conviction on presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of NI Act. 12. Even contention about failure by Appellate Court to refer to deposition of DW-2 and Ex.D1 would not be sufficient to establish perversity of findings. 13. Inconsistency in deposition of PW-1 about project in consideration being his first would not be material contradiction. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:498 CRL.RP No. 1535 of 2023 14. Insofar as failure to serve demand notice, it is seen Ex.P4 is demand notice dated 14.07.2016 and Exs.P9 to P12 are un-served postal covers. Ex.P10 bears endorsement ‘not claimed returned to sender’. In cross-examination of PW-1 suggestion is made that accused is still residing at address shown in Ex.P4. In case of collusion between complainant and Postman, nothing prevented accused from examining any official from local Post Office. Omission, would dry said contention of its substance. Therefore, finding about deemed service of demand notice on accused would be in accordance with law. 15. Thus, none of contentions urged establish perversity of findings. Consequently, revision petition is without merit and is dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE AV/GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 66