[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
M/S Synergy Images Private Ltd vs M/S Invuit Solutions Pvt Ltd on 17 February, 2026
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:9677
CRL.RP No. 239 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.239 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. M/S SYNERGY IMAGES PRIVATE LTD
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT,
1956 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
NO.839, 'A' BLOCK, SAHAKARA NAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 092
REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT & CEO
MS. MALINI SUBRAMANYAM
2. MALINI SUBRAMANYAM PRESIDENT & CEO
M/S SYNERGY IMAGES PRIVATE LTD,
839, 'A' BLOCK, SAHAKARA NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 092.
Digitally
signed by
NANDINI M S 3. K NARESH KUMAR,
Location: EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT
HIGH COURT M/S SYNERGY IMAGES PRIVATE LTD,
OF
KARNATAKA 839, 'A' BLOCK, SAHAKARA NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 092.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VISHNU HEGDE., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S INVUIT SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT,
1956 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 52/B,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:9677
CRL.RP No. 239 of 2025
HC-KAR
100 FT. ROAD, IV BLOCK, KORAMANGALA,
BANGALORE - 560 034,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGER-ADMINISTRATION
MR. PRATHEESH,
2. SRINIVAS MAHALINGAM,
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
SYNERGY IMAGES PRIVATE LTD
M/S SYNERGY IMAGES PRIVATE LTD
NO.839, 'A' BLOCK, SAHAKARA NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 092
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANJANA RAO., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
VIDE ORDER DATED 03.12.2025 PETITION IS DISMISSED
AGAINST R2)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF
CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 10.10.2024 PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE LXIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT
BANGALORE (CCH-70) IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.966/2019, i.e.,
ANNEXURE-A AND ALSO BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 11.04.2019 PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE XXI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
BANGALORE CITY IN CC.NO.19123/2009, i.e., ANNEXURE-B
AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO ACQUIT THE
PETITIONERS IN THE SAID CASE FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE,
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:9677
CRL.RP No. 239 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
1. Accused nos.1 to 3 are before this Court in this
Criminal Revision petition filed under Section 397 R/w 401 of
Cr.P.C, with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order of
conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.19123 of 2009 dated
11.04.2019 by the Court of XXI Addl. Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru City and the judgment and order passed
in Criminal Appeal No.966 of 2019 dated 10.10.2024 passed by
the Court of LXIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. Respondent no.1 Company had initiated
proceedings against the petitioners and another for offence
punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 (for short, 'N.I. Act) before the jurisdictional Court of
Magistrate in C.C.No.19123 of 2009. It is the case of the
complainant that, accused no.1 is a Company and accused no.2
is the President and CEO of the said Company and accused
no.3 is the Executive Vice President of accused no.1 Company.
Accused no.4 was the authorized signatory of accused no.1
Company and accused no.2 to 4 were actively involved and in-
NC: 2026:KHC:9677
HC-KAR
charge and responsible for the activities of accused no.1
Company in its day to day affairs. Accused no.2 to 4 allegedly
had approached complainant Company on behalf of accused
no.1 Company to carryout work relating to structured cabling,
networking etc. for their new facility at Hebbal. Subsequently,
two purchase orders were placed on behalf of the accused no.1
Company, which were signed by accused no.2 for a total sum of
₹.12,89,302/-. Towards the services and supply of materials
made by the complainant, totally a sum of ₹.14,63,804/- was
due to be paid by the accused and towards payment of the said
amount, cheque in question bearing no.150561, dated
15.11.2008 drawn on Corporation Bank, Airport Branch,
Bengaluru for a sum of Rs.14,63,804/- was issued by accused
in favour of complainant. The said cheque when presented for
realization was dishonoured by the drawee bank with a shara
"Payment stopped by the drawer". It is under these
circumstances, a legal notice was got issued on behalf of the
complainant to the accused, calling upon them to pay the
amount covered under the cheque in question. Though, the
said notices were served on the accused, the amount covered
under the cheque in question was not repaid nor was any reply
NC: 2026:KHC:9677
HC-KAR
given to the notice on behalf of the accused. It is under these
circumstances, complainant had approached the jurisdictional
Court of Magistrate and had initiated proceedings against
accused nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.19123 of 2009. However, since
proper steps were not taken as against accused no.4, complaint
was dismissed as against accused no.4.
4. To prove its case against accused nos.1 to 3, the
complainant had examined its Director Vinu Varghese as PW1
and had got marked 60 documents as Ex.P1 to P60. On behalf
of the defence, accused no.3 had examined himself as DW1
and another witness was examined as DW2. Four documents
were got marked on behalf of the defence as Ex.D1 to D4. The
Trial Court after hearing the arguments addressed on both
sides and also after appreciating the oral and documentary
evidence placed on record by the parties, convicted accused
nos.1 to 3 for offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act
and sentenced them to pay fine of Rs.13,50,000/- and in
default accused nos.2 and 3 were directed to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one year. The said judgment and
order of conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court in
NC: 2026:KHC:9677
HC-KAR
C.C.19123 of 2009 was confirmed in Criminal Appeal no.966 of
2019 by the Court of LXIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru. It is under these circumstances, accused nos.1 to 3
are before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners having
reiterated the ground urged in the petition submits that, the
complainant had not rendered proper service and since there
was deficiency in service, the accused had issued instructions
to stop payment on the cheque in question. He submits that
accused are not liable to pay any amount to the complainant
much less the amount covered under the cheque in question
and there is no relationship of debtor and creditor between the
parties.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
respondent / complainant has argued in support of the
impugned judgement and order of sentence passed by the
Courts below and submits that, the transaction between the
parties is proved by the documentary evidence. Even accused
have not disputed the transaction between the parties and they
also have not disputed the issuance of cheque in question. The
NC: 2026:KHC:9677
HC-KAR
presumption that arose against them therefore stood
unrebutted and Courts below were therefore justified in
convicting and sentencing the accused for the office punishable
under section 138 of N.I. Act.
7. The complainant Company to prove its case had
examined it Director Vinu Varghese as PW.1. He has reiterated
the averments found in the complaint during the course of his
examination-in-chief. Ex.P1 to 9 are the sales invoices. ExP10
to 21 are the delivery challans. The aforesaid documents
coupled with Ex.P40 and Ex.P41 which are purchase orders
placed by the accused and the communication between the
parties produced at Ex.P42 to Ex.P.56 clearly proves the
alleged business transaction between the parties.
8. It is not in dispute that cheque in question-Ex.P.22
was drawn on the bank account of accused no.1 Company
maintained by it in Corporation Bank, Airport branch, Bengaluru
and the same was signed by accused no.4, who is the
authorised signatory of accused no.1 Company. Accused no.2 is
the President and CEO of accused no.1 Company and therefore
in view of Section 141 of N.I. Act she is liable to be prosecuted
NC: 2026:KHC:9677
HC-KAR
on behalf of the accused no.1 Company for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
9. Accused no.3 is the Executive Vice President of
accused no.1 Company, who was the allegedly participating in
the day-to-day management affairs of accused no.1 Company.
Accused no.3 has examined himself as DW.1 and his deposition
would clearly goes to show that, he was participating in the
day-to-day affairs of accused no.1 Company and he also had
signed the purchase orders produced at Ex.P40 and Ex.P41 on
behalf of accused no.1 Company.
10. According to the complainant, towards payment of
the amount due by accused no.1 Company for the service
rendered and material supplied, the cheque in question was
issued for a sum of Rs.14,63,804/-. The said cheque on
presentation for realisation was dishounered and therefore, a
statutory legal notice was got issued on behalf of complainant
Company as per Ex.P24. Ex.P35 and Ex.P39 are postal
acknowledgements, which would clearly goes to show that legal
notice at Ex.P.24 was duly served on all the accused. Since the
issuance of the cheque and the signature found in the cheque is
NC: 2026:KHC:9677
HC-KAR
not in dispute, a presumption arises as against the accused as
provided under section 139 read with 118 of the N.I. Act that
the cheque in question was issued towards legally recoverable
debt. Unless the said presumption is rebutted successfully by
the accused by putting forward a probable defence, the accused
are liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
11. According to the accused, the cheque in question
was issued as a security in the transaction between the parties.
The said defence was not probalized by accused either by oral
evidence or by documentary evidence. It is also necessary to
note here that during the pendency of the case before the Trial
Court, a sum of ₹2,00,000/- was paid by the accused to the
complainant under a demand draft and DW2, who is the
Manager of the Bank, has spoken about the said payment made
to the complainant on behalf of the accused. The Trial Court
has deducted the said payment of ₹.2,00,000/- that was made
on behalf of the accused to the complainant, while passing the
order of sentence against accused nos.1 to 3. The Appellate
Court, having re-appreciated the oral and documentary
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9677
HC-KAR
evidence available on record, has rightly confirmed the
judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the
Trial Court. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the
impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence
passed by the Trial Court against petitioners herein, which calls
for interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional
jurisdiction. Under the circumstances, I am not inclined to
entertain this petition.
12. Accordingly, criminal revision petition is dismissed.
13. Registry is directed to forthwith return the Trial
Court records.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
NMS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37
