[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
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)
NC: 2026:KHC:9866
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
NC: 2026:KHC:9866
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
NC: 2026:KHC:9866
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
NC: 2026:KHC:9866
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
NC: 2026:KHC:9866
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
NC: 2026:KHC:9866
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
NC: 2026:KHC:9866
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
NC: 2026:KHC:9866
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
