[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

R. B. Electronics vs M/S. Leoch Batteries (I) Pvt. Ltd on 25 February, 2026

Author: S Vishwajith Shetty

Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty

                                                 -1-
                                                             NC: 2026:KHC:11804
                                                         CRL.RP No. 661 of 2022


                   HC-KAR



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                            DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
                                              BEFORE
                          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
                            CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 661 OF 2022
                   BETWEEN:

                   R.B. ELECTRONICS
                   REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR
                   BALAJI. P.R.
                   AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
                   NO.203, KAMRAJ ROAD
                   OPP GANESH TEMPLE
                   BENGALURU - 560 042.
                                                                    ...PETITIONER
                   (BY SMT. K.B. JAYALAKSHMI, AMICUS CURIAE
                   V/O DTD:15.04.2025 NOTICE TO RESPONDE IS H/S)

                   AND:

                   M/S. LEOCH BATTERIES (I) PVT. LTD.,
                   REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED PERSON,
                   S. PARAMESH
                   S/O LATE SIDDALINGAPPA
                   AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
Digitally signed   PLOT NO. A 53 (B)
by NANDINI M       2ND MAIN ROAD
S
                   PEENYA 2ND STAGE
Location: HIGH
COURT OF           INDUSTRIAL AREA
KARNATAKA          BENGALURU - 560 058.
                                                                   ...RESPONDENT
                         THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
                   ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE
                   JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED LXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
                   AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU DATED 15.02.2022 PASSED IN
                   CRL.A.NO.25038/2020 IN CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND
                   CONVICTION PASSED BY THE LEARNED XXXIV ADDITIONAL CHIEF
                   METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE BENGALURU DATED 04.01.2020 IN
                   C.C.NO.53399/2018 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER ACCUSED FOR
                   THE ALLEGED OFFENCE.
                                  -2-
                                                 NC: 2026:KHC:11804
                                             CRL.RP No. 661 of 2022


HC-KAR



    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY


                             ORAL ORDER

1. Accused is before this Court in this Criminal

Revision petition filed under Section 397 R/w Section 401 of

Cr.P.C, with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order

dated 04.01.2020 passed in C.C.No.53399 of 2018 by the Court

of XXXIV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall Unit,

Bengaluru and the judgment and order dated 15.02.2020

passed in Crl.A.No.25038 of 2020 by the Court of LXXIII Addl.

City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.

2. Heard the learned Amicus Curiae on behalf of the

petitioner. Respondent, who is served in the matter has

remained unrepresented before this Court.

3. The respondent herein had initiated proceedings

against the petitioner before the jurisdictional Court of

Magistrate in C.C.No.53399 of 2018 for offence punishable

under Section 138 of N.I. Act. It is the case of the respondent

Company that it had supplied power batteries to the petitioner

NC: 2026:KHC:11804

HC-KAR

and towards part payment of the material supply, the cheques

in question bearing no.871182 dated 31.08.2017 for a sum of

₹.9,30,900/- and bearing no.871179 dated 31.08.2017 for a

sum of ₹.8,73,921/- both drawn on Canara Bank was issued in

favour of the complainant Company and the said cheques when

presented for realisation were dishonoured by the drawee bank

with a shara "Funds insufficient". Thereafter, the complainant

had got issued legal notice to the petitioner, which was duly

served. Instead of repaying the amount covered under the

cheques in question the petitioner had issued a reply notice

raising untenable defence. It is under these circumstances, the

complainant had approached the jurisdictional Court of

Magistrate and had filed a private complaint against the

petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the

N.I. Act.

4. In the said proceedings, the Trial Court had

convicted the petitioner for offence punishable under Section

138 of N.I. Act and sentenced the petitioner to pay fine of

₹.21,09,821/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment

for a period of 3 months. The said judgment and order of

NC: 2026:KHC:11804

HC-KAR

conviction and sentence passed by the Trial court in

C.C.No.53399 of 2018 was confirmed by the Appellate Court in

Criminal Appeal No.25038 of 2020. It is under these

circumstances, petitioner is before this Court.

5. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the petitioner

having reiterated grounds urged in the petition submits that,

the demand made in the statutory legal notice is for payment

of ₹ 55,00,000/- whereas the amount covered under the

cheques in question is only ₹.18,04,821/-. Therefore, the legal

notice issued to the petitioner cannot be said to be in

compliance of the requirement of Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

She submits that, the complainant is a Company which is

represented by Mr.S.Paramesh, who is allegedly the authorized

representative of the Company. However, no documentary

evidence was placed before the Courts below to show that the

Company had authorized aforesaid S. Paramesh to represent

the Company. The Courts below were therefore not justified in

entertaining the complaint and convicting the petitioner for the

alleged offence.

NC: 2026:KHC:11804

HC-KAR

6. The complainant in the present case is a private

Limited Company and the cause title of the judgment in

C.C.No.53399 of 2018 reflects that complainant Company is

represented by its authorized representative S. Paramesh S/o

Siddalingappa, who has been examined in the present case as

PW1. However, no material was produced before the Court to

show that, the complainant Company had authorized aforesaid

S. Paramesh to represent it. PW1 during the course of his

deposition except stating that he is the authorized

representative of the Company he has not stated in what

manner and capacity he is related to the Company. When the

complainant is the Company, it can be represented either by its

General Power of Attorney or by its authorized representative.

In a case where the Company is represented by its authorized

representative, there has to be a resolution passed by the

Board of Directors of the Company authorising the authorised

representative to represent the Company.

7. In the case on hand, neither in the complaint nor in

the course of deposition, it is stated that the Board of Directors

of the complainant Company had authorised aforesaid, S.

NC: 2026:KHC:11804

HC-KAR

Paramesh (PW1), to represent the Company. PW1 has not

produced the copy of authorization letter or the copy of the

resolution of the Board of Directors of the Company,

authorizing him to represent the Company. The Coordinate

Bench of this Court under similar circumstances in the case of

GEORGE JOSEPH AND ANOTHER v. HMT INTERNATIONAL

Ltd., - CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.129 OF 2013

DTD. 28.10.2014 has held that the authorized representative

of the Company should have an authorization by the Board of

the Company to represent him. In the said case, the Court

having found that the complainant Company was not

represented either by its General Power of Attorney holder or

by a person in whose favour the Board of Directors had passed

a resolution to represent the Company had acquitted the

accused.

8. Learned Amicus Curiae has brought to the notice of

this Court that the legal notice issued to the petitioner on

behalf of the respondent was also not in compliance of

requirement of Section 138(b) of the N.I. Act. In the complaint

as well as in the legal notice, it is stated that during the course

NC: 2026:KHC:11804

HC-KAR

of transaction between the parties, the petitioner was totally

due to pay a sum of ₹.55,00,000/- to the respondent Company.

In the legal notice issued on behalf of the complainant

Company, after the cheques in question were dishonoured,

demand is made for payment of the entire amount of

₹.55,00,000/- which allegedly the petitioner was due to pay to

the complainant instead of making a demand for payment of

the amount of ₹.18,04,821/- which is amount covered under

the cheques in question.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of KAVERI

PLASTICS V. MAHDOOM BAWA BAHRUDEEN NOORUL -

2025 SCC ONLINE SC 2019 in paragraph nos.8 and 9 has

observed as follows:

"8. From the aforestated reiterative pronouncements and the principles propounded by the courts, the position of law that emerges is that the notice demanding the payment of the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque is one of the main ingredients of the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the event of the main ingredient not being satisfied on account of discrepancy in the amount of cheque and one mentioned in the notice, all proceedings under section 138 of the

NC: 2026:KHC:11804

HC-KAR

Negotiable Instruments Act would fall flat as bad in law. The notice to be issued under proviso (b) to section 138 of the Act, must mention the same amount for which the cheque was issued. It is mandatory that the demand in the statutory notice has to be the very amount of the cheque. After mentioning the exact cheque amount, the sender of the service may claim in the notice amounts such as legal charges, notice charges, interest and such other additional amounts, provided the cheque amount is specified to be demanded for payment.

8.1. A failure in above regard, namely when the cheque amount is not mentioned in the proviso (b) notice or the amount different than the actual cheque amount is mentioned, in the notice, such notice would stand invalid in eye of law. The notice in terms of proviso (b) being a provision in penal statute and a condition for the offence, it has to be precise while mentioning of the amount of the cheque which is dishonoured. Even if the cheque details are mentioned in the notice but corresponding amount of cheque is not correctly mentioned, it would not bring in law the validity for such notice. Here the principle of reading of notice as a whole is inapplicable and irrelevant. Any elasticity cannot be adopted in the interpretation. It has to be given technical interpretation.

9. When the provision is penal and the offence is technical, there is no escape from holding that the "said amount" in proviso (b) cannot be the amount other than mentioned in the cheque in question for dishonour of

NC: 2026:KHC:11804

HC-KAR

which the notice is received, nor the mentioning of omnibus amount in the notice would fulfil the requirement. It has to be held that in order to make a valid notice under the proviso (b) to section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it is mandatory that "said amount" to be mentioned therein is the very amount of cheque, and none other."

10. Under the circumstances, the legal notice at Ex.P6

issued on behalf of the complainant to the petitioner cannot be

said to be in compliance of the requirements of Section 138(b)

of the N.I. Act and therefore, the proceedings initiated against

the petitioner based on the said notice is not a valid

proceeding. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have

erred in not noticing this aspect of the matter. In addition to

the aforesaid, material on record would also go to show that,

petitioner had successfully rebutted the presumption that arose

against it as provided under Section 139 R/w Section 118 of

the N.I. Act. The petitioner had set up a defence that after the

year 2016 there was no transaction between the parties and