Karnataka High Court
K Mohan And Company (Exports) Pvt Ltd vs Strawberry Lenceria Private Limited on 14 March, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:10663
CRL.A No. 1112 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1112 OF 2024 (A)
BETWEEN:
K MOHAN AND COMPANY (EXPORTS) PVT LTD
B-1, 62/5, BEGUR ROAD,
DEVARACHIKKANAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
BOMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU-560068.
PRESENTLY AT NO.372,
1ST FLOOR, CABIN NO.106,
WS NO.6, 6TH CROSS, GOLDEN SQUARE,
WILSON GARDEN, BENGALURU-560 027,
REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
MR. CHANDRAKANT KONDIRAM WETAL.
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M ...APPELLANT
Location: HIGH (BY SRI KAVITHA DAMODARAN AND
COURT OF SRI VACHAN H U, ADVOCATES)
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. STRAWBERRY LENCERIA PRIVATE LIMITED
NO.3347/A, 2ND FLOOR, 13TH MAIN,
HAL 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU-560 008.
2. MR. THANDAND THAN KRISHNADAS
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:10663
CRL.A No. 1112 of 2024
STRAWBERRY LENCERIA PRIVATE LIMITED,
NO.3347/A, 2ND FLOOR, 13TH MAIN,
HAL 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU-560 008.
ALSO AT NO.26,
AISHWARYA, 1ST CROSS,
2ND MAIN, DOMLUR,
2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU-560 071.
3. MR. THUNDIPARAMBIL JOSEPH FRANCIS JOSEPH
DIRECTOR SALES,
STRAWBERRY LENCERIA PRIVATE LIMITED,
NO.3347/A, 2ND FLOOR,
13TH MAIN, HAL 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU-560 008.
ALSO AT NO.24, VENKATESHWAR LAYOUT,
JAYANTHI NAGAR,
HORAMAVU,
BENGALURU-560 043.
4. MS. SHEETAL RAJ NATARAJ ADONI
DIRECTOR PRODUCT AND DESIGN - WOMEN,
STRAWBERRY LENCERIA PRIVATE LIMITED,
NO. 3347/A, 2ND FLOOR, 13TH MAIN,
HAL 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU-560 008.
ALSO AT 1ST CROSS,
NEAR MAHADI MOTORS,
SRE LAYOUT,
CHITRADURGA-577 501.
...RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO R1 TO R4 SERVED, UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.378(4) CR.P.C PRAYING TO
ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:10663
CRL.A No. 1112 of 2024
JUDGMENT DATED 24.04.2024 PASSED BY THE XIV
ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND A.C.M.M BENGALURU IN
C.C.NO.3792/2018 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I
ACT AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant.
2. The main contention of the learned counsel for
the appellant that proceedings is initiated under Section
138 of NI Act against accused No.1 and other accused
persons and accused Nos.3, 5 and other accused were not
secured before the Trial Court and hence, the proceedings
initiated against accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 6 and they have
faced the trial but the Trial Court while passing the order
though raised the point for consideration, same has been
answered as negative and not given any finding in respect
of accused No.1 and thus, erroneously passed an order
NC: 2025:KHC:10663
acquitting accused Nos.2, 4 and 6 and the Trial Court
ought to have given finding against accused No.1 also. The
counsel further submits that in respect of other accused,
the matter is pending before the Trial Court and only
accused No.5 was secured and proceeding is going on
against accused No.5 and proclamation is issued against
other accused persons.
3. Having perused the order of the Trial Court, it
discloses that the Trial Court considered the evidence of
power of attorney holder who has not having the
knowledge about the transaction and PW2 evidence is very
clear that he does not know about the transaction between
the complainant and accused. PW2 is the authorized
person but he has not having knowledge about the
transaction. Hence, relied upon the judgment reported in
(2014) 11 SCC 790 in the case of A C NARAYANA vs
STATE OF MAHARASTRA AND ANOTHER and answered
the point as negative. The counsel for the appellant
rightly brought to notice of this Court when the complaint
NC: 2025:KHC:10663
is filed against the company and others directors, nothing
discussed in the judgment of the Trial Court with regard to
the company and this Court also issued notice against the
respondents and inspite of service of notice, they did not
choose to appear before the Court.
4. Having taken note of the material on record
when the Trial Court did not discuss anything about the
company as well as directors whether they are well known
to the facts or not and only reason assigned by the Trial
Court is power of attorney holder who has no knowledge
regarding the transactions, cannot be examined as a
witness in the case. But the Trial Court ought to have
taken note of the evidence placed on record and nothing is
discussed with regard to accused No.1-company is
concerned. When the matter is pending before the Trial
Court, it is appropriate to set aside the order and remand
the matter for reconsideration along with pending case
which is now in consideration in respect of accused No.5.
Hence, this case has to be considered along with
NC: 2025:KHC:10663
C.C.No.3298/2024 and consider the issue involved
between the complainant as well as accused No.1-
company and directors and thereby consider the matter
afresh. Even if any further evidence given by the
complainant/appellant, the same shall be considered by
the Trial Court. Hence the order impugned requires to be
set aside.
5. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated
24.04.2024 passed in C.C.No.3792/2018 is set aside. The
matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for fresh
consideration along with the pending C.C.No.3298/2024 in
view of observation made above.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SN
