Karnataka High Court
M/S N N Ispat vs M/S Bharath Infra Exports And Imports ... on 1 August, 2025
-1-
CRL.RP No.32 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.32 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. M/S. N. N. ISPAT
HAVING ITS REGD OFFICE
AT NO.23, KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA,
TAMAKA KOLAR, KOLAR DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROP
SRI NIKHIL KUMAR GUPTA
2. MR. NIKHIL KUMAR GUPTA
S/O SRI NARENDRA KUMAR GUPTA,
NO.748, I FLOOR, 10TH MAIN,
III STAGE, BASAVESHWARANAGAR
BANGALORE 560079.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. DEVARAJ N., ADV.)
AND:
Digitally signed by
MALLIKARJUN
M/S BHARATH INFRA EXPORTS AND IMPORTS LTD
RUDRAYYA
KALMATH
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HAVING ITS REGD OFFICE AT 48, HEBBAGODI
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2025.08.01
15:03:46 +0530
HOSUR MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE 100
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED PERSON
SRI KSR SAGAR.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. D.L.JAGADEESH, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SMT. RAKSHITHA D.J., ADV.)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.04.2015
PASSED IN C.C.NO.20130/2011 BY THE A.C.M.M., BENGALURU
AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.639/2015
-2-
CRL.RP No.32 of 2017
DATED 30.11.2016 BY THE LXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE AND ETC.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 25.07.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT,
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CAV ORDER
The accused have preferred this revision petition against
the Judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 01st
April, 2015 passed in CC.No.20130 of 2011 by the XXI
Additional CMM Court, Bangalore (for short "the trial Court"),
which is confirmed by Judgment and order dated 30th
November, 2016 in Criminal Appeal No.639 of 2015 by the LXV
Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, (CCH-66) (for
short "the appellate Court").
2. For convenience, the parties herein are referred to
as per their ranking before the trial Court.
Factual background of the case:
3. The private complaint filed under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "the NI Act"),
alleging that the accused No.2-Proprietor of accused No.1-
Company, placed order for raw material worth Rs.15,00,000/.
-3-
CRL.RP No.32 of 2017
Upon delivery of goods, the accused issued Cheque No.372358
dated 26th November, 2010 drawn on Punjab National Bank,
Peenya Industrial Estate Branch, Bengaluru. When the cheque
was presented, the same came to be returned with bank
endorsement "exceeds arrangement". Despite legal notice
being duly served, the accused failed to pay the cheque
amount, leading to the filing of the complaint. The trial Court
convicted the accused under Section 138 of the NI Act and
sentenced the accused to pay fine of Rs.15,10,000/- with
default sentence of ten months simple imprisonment. The
appellate Court upheld the decision. Being aggrieved by the
same, the accused have preferred this Revision Petition.
Submissions on behalf of revision petitioners-accused:
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri N. Devaraj,
contended that both the Courts have failed to properly
appreciate the defence evidence and the documents Exhibits
D2 and D3-Bank statements showing RTGS payments. He
would submit that the cheque in question was issued only a
security instrument as per the agreement between the parties.
The payment for receipt of raw materials was made through
RTGS prior to presentation of the cheque and the complainant,
instead of returning the cheque, has misused it. It is further
-4-
CRL.RP No.32 of 2017
submitted that the complainant, being an Ex-MLC, exerted
undue influence and obtained documents including the General
Power of Attorney from the accused under coercion. The
statement made in cross-examination indicating that RTGS
transfers had nothing to do with the cheque in question, was
misinterpreted. On all these grounds, it was sought to allow
the revision petitions.
Submission on behalf of the respondent-Complainant:
5. As against this, the learned Senior Counsel D.L.
Jagadeesh, appearing on behalf of Smt. D.J. Rakshitha, learned
Counsel for the respondent, would submit that both Courts
have properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance
with the law and facts. Absolutely, there are no grounds to
interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order
on sentence passed by the trial Court which is confirmed by the
appellate Court. He would submit that the accused failed to
rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act. The
RTGS payments were not contemporaneous with the cheque
and not linked to the invoices in question. The accused has not
replied to the statutory legal notice. The allegations of
influence and misuse of cheques were raised only during trial
and are unsupported by documentary evidence. Further, he
-5-
CRL.RP No.32 of 2017
submits that the accused failed to comply with the Interim
Order dated 15th November, 2018 passed by this Court
directing the accused to deposit 50% of the fine amount,
showing lack of bona fides. On all these grounds, the learned
Senior Counsel sought to dismiss the revision petition with
exemplary costs. In support of his submissions, he placed
reliance on the following decisions:
1) BIR SINGH v. MUKESH KUMAR - (2019)4 SCC
458;
2) K.N. BEENA v. MUNIYAPPAN AND ANOTHER -
(2001)8 SCC 458;
3) UTTAM RAM v. DEVINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER
- (2019)10 SCC 287;
4) STP LTD. BANGALORE v. USHA PAINTS
DECORATIONS, BANGALORE AND ANOTHER -
(2006)5 KLJ 323;
5) LALE PATEL v. SHARAN BASAPPA - (2012)7 KAR
473.
6. By way of re-joinder, the learned counsel for the
revision petitioners would submit that the petitioner not
complying with the interim order passed by this Court cannot
be a ground for dismissal of revision petitions. The Court has
to dispose of the case on merits. To substantiate this
-6-
CRL.RP No.32 of 2017
submission, he has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of VIJAYA D. SALVI v. STATE OF
MAHARASTRA AND OTHERS reported in (2007) 5 SCC 741.
7. Having heard the arguments on both sides and on
perusal of materials, the following point would arise for my
consideration;
"Whether the judgment of conviction and order
on sentence passed by the Trial Court which is
confirmed by the Appellate Court is perverse,
capricious and suffers from legal infirmities?"
Finding:
8. I have examined the materials placed before me. The
respondent complainant has filed complaint under Section 138
of NI Act for dishonour of Cheque and legal notice under the
said Section. The complainant complied with all the procedural
mandates under Sections 138 and 142 of the NI Act. The
presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act in favour of the
complainant is statutory and mandatory, unless rebutted by
cogent evidence. The defence of the accused that the cheque
being a mere security and the payments were made through
RTGS, has not been supported by documentary proof linking the
-7-
CRL.RP No.32 of 2017
transfers to the specific invoices or cheque. In the cross-
examination, the accused admitted that the RTGS transfers
were not related to the dishonoured cheque. As regards the
complainants misuse of political influence, as also coercion, is
also not supported by reliable or admissible evidence. The
complaint-Exhibit D5 does not mention the disputed cheque.
Both the courts have rightly appreciated the evidence and
arrived at a concurrent finding of guilt. . This Court does not
find any perversity, misapplication of law or miscarriage of
justice in the decisions rendered by the trial Court which is
confirmed by the Appellate Court.
Conclusion:
9. In the light of discussion made above, I answer the
point arose for consideration, in the negative. In the result, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) Revision petition dismissed;
ii) Judgment of conviction and order on sentence
dated 01st April, 2015 passed in CC.No.20130 of
2011 by the XXI Additional CMM Court,
Bangalore, which is confirmed by Judgment and
order dated 30th November, 2016 passed in Crl.A.
No.639 of 2015 by the LXV Addl. City Civil &
Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, (CCH-66), is
confirmed;
iii) Registry to send the trial court records along with
copy of this Order to the concerned Court.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
lnn
