Karnataka High Court
Sri. Badrinath Ladda vs Smt. D. Vijaya on 18 February, 2026
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:9866
CRL.RP No. 1139 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1139 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
SRI. BADRINATH LADDA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
S/O KISHANLAL LADDA,
PROPRIETOR,
M/S SRINIDHI TRADING COMPANY
RESIDENT OF NO.345, KIRAN NIVAS,
OPP: ALL INDIA RADIO STATION,
HOSPET.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SATYANARAYANA CHALKE S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. D. VIJAYA
Digitally AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
signed by W/O MUTHUSWAMY,
NANDINI M S
PROPRIETRIX,
Location:
HIGH COURT M/S SUMITH IMPEX,
OF OPP: STATE BANK OF MYSORE,
KARNATAKA
BILEKAHALLI,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 078 AND
RESIDENT OF THE PREMISES,
BEARING NO.63, 7TH MAIN,
3RD PHASE, J. P. NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 078.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VEERABHADRAIAH., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. H.N.BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE) -2- NC: 2026:KHC:9866 CRL.RP No. 1139 of 2017 HC-KAR THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 02.08.2017 IN CRL.APPEAL NO.446/2014 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE LXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-70), BANGALORE AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 03.04.2014 PASSED BY THE CURT OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AND XXIV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.14587/2004 AND THE PETITIONER MAY KINDLY BE ACQUITTED, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 12.02.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CAV ORDER
1. This revision petition under Sections 397 read with 401 of Cr.PC is filed by the accused with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 03.04.2014 passed by the Court of XXII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City, in CC.No.14587/2004 and the judgment and order dated 02.08.2017 passed by the -3- NC: 2026:KHC:9866 CRL.RP No. 1139 of 2017 HC-KAR Court of LXIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Crl.A.No.446/2014.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. The respondent herein had filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.PC against the petitioner herein before the jurisdictional Court of Magistrate alleging that the cheque in question bearing No.817355 dated 16.04.2004 drawn on ING Vysya Bank, Hospet Branch, for a sum of Rs.45 lakhs which was issued in favour of the complainant by the petitioner towards repayment of the amount of Rs.45 lakhs received by him from the complainant was dishonoured by the drawee bank for the reason that payment was stopped by the drawer.
According to the complainant, petitioner who is the Proprietor of the firm known as M/s. Sreenidhi Trading Company had undertaken to supply 50 MTs of iron ore to the complainant who is the Proprietrix of firm known as M/s. Sumith Impex at the rate of Rs.235/- per metric tonne and had totally received a sum of Rs.45 lakhs from the respondent, but had failed to supply the iron ore and towards repayment of the amount received, had issued the cheque in question for a sum of Rs.45 -4- NC: 2026:KHC:9866 CRL.RP No. 1139 of 2017 HC-KAR lakhs. After the said cheque was dishonoured by the drawee bank, a statutory notice was got issued on behalf of the complainant to the petitioners herein and since the petitioner had not repaid the amount covered under the cheque in question inspite of service of legal notice, the respondent had initiated proceedings against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act in CC.No.14587/2004 before the jurisdictional Court of Magistrate.
4. In the said proceedings, petitioner after receipt of summons from the Trial Court, had appeared before the court and claimed to be tried. To prove her case, the respondent had examined herself as PW-1 before the Trial Court and got marked 26 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-26. On behalf of the defence, no oral evidence was led, but six documents were got marked as Exs.D-1 to D-6.
5. The Trial Court after hearing the arguments addressed on both sides and on appreciating the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.45,05,000/-, and in default to -5- NC: 2026:KHC:9866 CRL.RP No. 1139 of 2017 HC-KAR undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. The said judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court in CC.No.14587/2004 was confirmed in Crl.A.No.446/2014. It is under these circumstances, the accused is before this Court.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the cheque in question has been issued by the petitioner under letter Ex.D-3 which would go to show that the said cheque was issued with a condition that respondent shall ensure and supply iron ore fines Fe % 63.5+. Undisputedly, the respondent has not complied the said condition, and therefore, it cannot be said that the cheque was issued towards legally recoverable debt. The courts below have failed to appreciate the aforesaid aspect of the matter. Though the respondent is the Proprietrix of M/s. Sumith Impex, one Mr. Varuthi B.U.Shankar was the person who was looking after the day today affairs of the said firm. He has not been examined in the present case. The legal notice was replied by the petitioner raising a probable defence which was substantiated during trial. The courts below ought to have appreciated the same and should have held that the -6- NC: 2026:KHC:9866 CRL.RP No. 1139 of 2017 HC-KAR presumption that stood against the petitioner stood rebutted. He, accordingly prays to allow the petition.
7. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the two courts have concurrently held against the petitioner and the scope of this court to interfere with the concurrent findings in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction is very narrow. He submits that respondent has not signed Ex.D-3 and there is no contract between the respondent and the petitioner for supply of iron ore as mentioned in Ex.D-3. He submits that Varuthi B.U.Shankar was not the authorized representative of M/s. Sumith Impex, and on the other hand, he was only an employee working in the said firm. He refers to Ex.P-20 and submits that Civil Court had rejected the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of temporary injunction restraining the respondent from presenting the cheque in question for encashment. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BIR SINGH VS MUKESH KUMAR - (2019)4 SCC 197, and RAJARAM S/O SRIRAMULU NAIDU (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES VS -7- NC: 2026:KHC:9866 CRL.RP No. 1139 of 2017 HC-KAR MARUTHACHALAM (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES - (2023)16 SCC 125.
8. According to the respondent/complainant, petitioner had agreed to supply iron ore mud from Subbarayanahalli iron ore dump waste at the rate of Rs.235/- per MT and towards advance payment for supply of 50 MT of iron ore mud, petitioner had received a total amount of Rs.45 lakhs from the respondent. Out of the aforesaid Rs.45 lakhs, a sum of Rs.5,00,000./- was paid vide demand draft dated 28.03.2004 and balance amount of Rs.40 lakhs was paid in cash. Exs.P-10 & P-11 are the documents on which reliance has been placed by the respondent to prove that petitioner had agreed to supply iron ore mud as aforesaid and had received amount of Rs.45 lakhs from her. According to the respondent, since the petitioner had failed to supply iron ore mud as undertaken in Exs.P-10 & P-11, the cheque in question bearing No.817355 dated 16.04.2004 drawn on ING Vysya Bank, Hospet Branch, for a sum of Rs.45 lakhs was issued in favour of M/s. Sumith Impex towards repayment of the amount received by the petitioner. Ex.D-3 is the letter issued by M/s. Sreenidhi Trading -8- NC: 2026:KHC:9866 CRL.RP No. 1139 of 2017 HC-KAR Company, to Varuthi B.U.Shankar who is said to be authorized representative of M/s. Sumith Impex. Ex.D-3 is dated 22.04.2004 and the said document reads as under:
"To: Date:22\04\2004
Mr. Vaurthi B U Shankar,
M/S Sumith Implex,
Opp. S BM,
Bannerugatta Road,
BANGALORE.
Dear Sir,
Reg: Cancellation of agreement and your
recent letter dated 18\04\2004.
This is reference to yours above letter dated 18\04\04 about terms and conditions as per following we agreed for repayment of your amount of Rs.45,00,000=00 (Rs. Forty five Lakhs Only) And inthis regards we request you to bear with us and the details as follows:
01. You have to insure and supply of Iron Ore fines with grade of Fe% 63.5+ only and 3.5) before dated of 05\05\04.
02. All stock sampling and All Loaded trucks of sampling should has to with SGS Hospet and total you have to responsible fo making upto 3300 mts and charges to has to be born by you only.
03. Total billing and permit and Forest Certificates and other all document has to subitt From Hospet sector.
04. Payement of Rs.45,00,000=00 enclosing Cheque No.817355 ING Vysya Bank Ltd, Hospet Branch and date of the cheque is 16/05/04. And incase if you not -9- NC: 2026:KHC:9866 CRL.RP No. 1139 of 2017 HC-KAR supply of All material above said grade of Iron ore fines before 15\05\2004 and the above said Cheque will automatically became Stop payment and further no amount will not be Pay to you and kindly note the meterail of 56 grade laying with us will not be give To you under any circumstances.
If you are will to agree the above conditions kindly come and collect the cheque along with this letter and ack. for it. Thanking you, For Sreenidhi Trading Co."
9. From a reading of the aforesaid letter, it is apparent that while admitting receipt of Rs.45 lakhs from M/s. Sumith Impex, it is stated in the said letter that the cheque in question is being issued subject to the condition that iron ore fines with Fe %63.5+ totally weighing 3300 MTs was required to be insured and supplied by M/s. Sumith Impex to M/s. Sreenidhi Trading Company. In the said letter, it is very clearly stated that in case if the iron ore fines as mentioned in the said letter is not supplied, payment under the cheque in question would be stopped and no further amount will be paid. It is further stated that if M/s. Sumith Impex is agreeable for the said condition, the cheque in question can be collected under acknowledgment. Ex.D-3 is addressed to Mr. Varuthi
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9866 CRL.RP No. 1139 of 2017 HC-KAR B.U.Shankar of M/s. Sumith IMpex and the said Varuthi B.U.Shankar has signed on Ex.D-3 mentioning that he has "agreed" for the terms and conditions found in Ex.D-3.
10. Learned Counsel for the respondent has raised a contention that the aforesaid Varuthi B.U.Shankar was only an employee of her firm M/s. Sumith IMpex and he was not the authorized representative of her firm. It is also contended on behalf of the respondent that Ex.D-3 is not binding on the respondent and she is not a signatory to Ex.D-3 and there is no contract as mentioned in Ex.D-3 between M/s. Sreenidhi Trading Company and M/s. Sumith Impex of which she is the Proprietrix.
11. Ex.P-6 is the legal notice dated 07.07.2004 issued to the petitioner on behalf of the respondent after the cheque in question was dishonoured by the drawee bank. In paragraph 1.2 of Ex.P-6, it is mentioned that respondent is the Proprietrix of M/s. Sumith Impex and Mr. Varuthi B.U.Shankar - an employee of M/s. Sumith Impex is looking after the day today affairs of the proprietary concern. It is also relevant to note here that after receipt of legal notice - Ex.P-6, reply notice -
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9866 CRL.RP No. 1139 of 2017 HC-KAR Ex.P-9 dated 19.07.2004 was issued on behalf of the petitioner putting forward his defence, and in the meanwhile he also had filed O.S.No.135/2004 in which M/s. Sumith Impex was arrayed as defendant no.1 and Mr. Varuthi B.U.Shankar was arrayed as defendant no.2.
12. In O.S.No.135/2004, petitioner had sought for a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendants not to present the cheque in question and to return the cheque in question to the petitioner/plaintiff. Even in the memorandum of plaint in O.S.No.135/2004, specific averment with regard to the execution of Ex.D-3 is made and it is stated that the cheque in question was issued subject to the condition that defendants would supply iron ore fines as mentioned in Ex.D-3. Ex.D-4 is the copy of the vakalath filed in O.S.No.135/2004. Perusal of Ex.D-4 would go to show that defendant no.1 viz., M/s. Sumith Impex was represented by the respondent herein i.e., Smt. D.Vijaya who had signed the vakalath and defendant nos.1 & 2 had engaged a common advocate in O.S.No.135/2004. Ex.P- 17 is the written statement filed on behalf of defendant no.2 - Varuthi B.U.Shankar in O.S.No.135/2004. In his written
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9866 CRL.RP No. 1139 of 2017 HC-KAR statement, defendant no.2 had specifically contended that the cheque in question which was issued to defendant no.1 viz., M/s. Sumith Impex has been already presented to the bank for realization and after the same was dishonoured, a legal notice was also issued to the petitioner/plaintiff, and therefore, the prayer made in the suit was rendered infructuous, and accordingly had prayed to dismiss the suit.
13. Ex.D-5 is the memo filed on behalf of defendant no.1 - M/s. Sumith Impex in O.S.No.135/2004, wherein the written statement filed on behalf of defendant no.2 was adopted by defendant no.1. Ex.D-6 is the memo filed on behalf of defendant nos.1 & 2 with a prayer to treat the written statement as counter to IA.no.2 filed on behalf of the plaintiff in O.S.No.135/2004 seeking an order of temporary injunction.
14. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that Varuthi B.U.Shankar was looking after the day today affairs of the firm
- M/s. Sumith Impex of which the respondent is the Proprietrix. The cheque in question has been issued under Ex.D-3 subject to certain conditions and Mr. Varuthi B.U.Shankar has signed Ex.D-3 with an acknowledgment that he had "agreed" for the
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9866 CRL.RP No. 1139 of 2017 HC-KAR conditions mentioned in Ex.D-3. The condition in Ex.D-3 is that the payment of the amount covered under the cheque in question is subject to supply of iron ore fines with Fe % 63.5+, and undisputedly, the said condition was not complied by M/s. Sumith Impex in whose favour the cheque in question has been drawn.
15. The contention urged by learned Counsel for the respondent that respondent-complainant viz.., D.Vijaya is not the signatory to Ex.D-3, and therefore, the condition found in Ex.D-3 is not binding on her, is liable to be rejected for the reason that Ex.D-3 is signed by the authorized representative of the firm - M/s. Sumith Impex in whose the favour the cheque in question was issued.
16. The documentary evidence which are analyzed herein above clearly shows that Mr. Varuthi B.U.Shankar was the authorized representative of M/s. Sumith Impex in whose favour the cheque in question was drawn, and the fact that he is looking after the day to day affairs of the firm is admitted in Ex.P-6 - legal notice issued on behalf of the respondent, though subsequently in her deposition she has disputed the same.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9866 CRL.RP No. 1139 of 2017 HC-KAR Even in the pleadings in O.S.No.135/2004 which are referred to herein above, it is found that Varuthi B.U.Shankar was the authorized representative of M/s. Sumith Impex. Therefore, the contention urged on behalf of the respondent that she is not bound by the condition found in Ex.D-3 is liable to be rejected.
17. Learned Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on Ex.P-20 and has submitted that Civil Court had rejected the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff in O.S.No.135/2004 to grant an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from presenting the cheque in question for realization. As stated earlier, M/s. Sumith Impex is defendant no.1 and Mr. Varuthi B.U.Shankar is defendant no.2 in the said suit. Defendant no.1 was represented in the said suit by the respondent herein viz., Smt. D.vijaya. It is relevant to mention that in the written statement filed by defendant no.2 in O.S.No.135/2004, he has specifically raised a contention that the cheque in question was already presented for realization and since the same was dishonoured by the drawee bank, a statutory legal notice was got issued on behalf of defendant no.1, and therefore, the prayer made in the suit
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9866 CRL.RP No. 1139 of 2017 HC-KAR was rendered infructuous. The Trial Court while rejecting IA.no.2 filed on behalf of the plaintiff in O.S.No.135/2004 in paragraph no.7(e) of the order, has observed as under:
"e) From the rival contentions of the parties one thing is clear that the plaintiff has issued a cheque in question to the 1st defendant. Whether the said cheque is issued for lawful consideration or not is a matter of fact to be decided on the merits of the case, and till then the defendants/respondents are entitled to the benefit of presumption available u/s 118 fo N.I.Act. Until the contrary is proved it shall be presumed that the cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent is to discharge the debt."
18. Undisputedly, the suit was thereafter not prosecuted and it is stated that the same was dismissed for non-prosecution. Therefore, no finding was recorded in O.S.No.135/2004 based on any oral or documentary evidence which was placed on record in the said suit. Therefore, the observations made by the Civil Court while rejecting IA.no.2 cannot be considered as a finding that the cheque in question was issued towards discharge of legally recoverable debt.
19. The petitioner has raised a specific defence before the Trial Court stating that the cheque in question was issued under Ex.D-3 - letter with a specific condition that the amount
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9866 CRL.RP No. 1139 of 2017 HC-KAR covered under the cheque in question would be paid subject to supply of iron ore fines as stated in Ex.D-3 by M/s. Sumith Impex. It is not in dispute that under Ex.D-3, cheque in question was issued in favour of the firm - M/s. Sumith Impex and the said cheque was received by the authorized representative of M/s. Sumith Impex by signing on Ex.D-3 agreeing for the condition mentioned in the said letter. Therefore, it cannot be said that the cheque in question was issued towards legally recoverable debt, unless it is shown that the condition found in Ex.D-3 was complied by M/s. Sumith Impex.
20. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have failed to appreciate the aforesaid aspects of the matter, have erred in convicting the petitioner holding that he had failed to rebut the presumption that arose against him. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner by the courts below, therefore, cannot be sustained.
21. The judgments in Bir Singh's case and Rajaram's case supra, on which reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the respondent cannot be made applicable to the
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9866 CRL.RP No. 1139 of 2017 HC-KAR facts and circumstances of the present case. It is trite that judgments can be relied as precedent only if the principles of the said judgment can be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. In the present case, the petitioner has probablized his defence based on oral and documentary evidence available on record, and therefore, the presumption that arose against the petitioner has been successfully rebutted by him. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the following order:
22. Criminal revision petition is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 03.04.2014 passed by the Court of XXII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City, in CC.No.14587/2004 and the judgment and order dated 02.08.2017 passed by the Court of LXIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Crl.A.No.446/2014, are set aside. Petitioner is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. His bail bonds, if any, stands cancelled. The amount deposited by the
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9866 CRL.RP No. 1139 of 2017 HC-KAR petitioner, if any, either before this Court or before the courts below, is permitted to be withdrawn by him.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1