Karnataka High Court
M/S Magnum Enterpriases vs M./S Shreeji Interiors on 27 April, 2026
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:23374
CRL.RP No. 202 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 202 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. M/S. MAGNUM ENTERPRIASES
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
2. SRI. ADITYA
PARTNER, M/S MAGNUM ENTERPRISES
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT PLOT NO. 371
10TH CROSS, 4TH PHASE, PEENA
INDUSTRIAL AREA,
BENGALURU - 560 008.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VASANTH MADHAVA S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by
MALATESH M/S. SHREEJI INTERIORS
KC REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
Location: SRI. RAHUL HARILAL PIPALIYA
HIGH SON OF HARILAL M. MISTRI
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
KARNATAKA R/AT NO. 27, AVS COMPOUND,
4TH BLOCK, 80 FEET ROAD,
KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU - 560 034.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. BALARAM M.L, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:23374
CRL.RP No. 202 of 2023
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.01.2023
PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.573/2018 PASSED BY THE LV ADDL. CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-56) AT BANGALORE
(ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri. Vasanth Madhava.S, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Balaram M.L, learned counsel for respondent.
2. Accused who suffered an Order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, confirmed in C.C. No.15309/2015, confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.573/2018 is the revision petitioner.
3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under:-
A private complaint came to be lodged under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. with the Jurisdiction Magistrate alleging the -3- NC: 2026:KHC:23374 CRL.RP No. 202 of 2023 HC-KAR commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
4. In the complaint it is contented that complainant is a civil contractor who undertakes the interior works, electric works, plumbing works. During the year 2011 accused entrusted interior work to the complainant. Complainant completed the work as agreed and raised the bill. Towards the payment of the said bill amount, a Cheque No.656806 dated 11.05.2012 for a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- and Cheque bearing No.656807 dated 19.05.2012 for a sum of Rs.5,06,500/- both the cheques were drawn on Canara Bank, Peenya Branch, Bangalore came to be issued.
5. First cheque bearing No. 656806 was honoured and the another cheque bearing No.656807 dated 19.05.2012 was not honoured with an endorsement 'payment stopped'.
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:23374 CRL.RP No. 202 of 2023 HC-KAR
6. Legal notice was issued for which an untenable reply came to be received by the complainant. Therefore, he sought for action against the accused.
7. Learned Trial Magistrate after completing the necessary formalities, summoned the accused and recorded the plea. Accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trial was held.
8. In order to prove the case of the complainant, Sri.Rahul Harilal Pipaliya was examined as PW1 and he placed on record seven documents which were exhibited and marked as Exhibit P1 to Exhibit P7 namely dishonour cheque, bank endorsement, copy of the legal notice, postal receipt and reply notice.
9. As against the material evidence placed on record by the complainant, accused represented by Sri. Aditya was examined as DW1 and he placed on record 14 documents which were exhibited and marked as Exhibit D1 to D14, comprising of estimation, copy of the notice, -5- NC: 2026:KHC:23374 CRL.RP No. 202 of 2023 HC-KAR postal acknowledgment, postal receipt, reply notice, amount paid, receipt and emails.
10. Learned Trial Magistrate on completion of recording of evidence, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and imposed fine of Rs.7,50,000/- with a default sentence of 6 months.
11. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No. 573/2018. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records. Heard the arguments of the parties and on re-appreciation of the material on record, dismissed the appeal filed by the accused inter alia holding in para 19 to 22 as under:-
"19. In his chief examination, the accused has stated that he had requested the complainant to present the cheque after completion of the agreed work. But the complainant without completion of the work presented the cheque. He further stated that since the work is incomplete the complainant is not entitle for cheque amount. In his cross examination, -6- NC: 2026:KHC:23374 CRL.RP No. 202 of 2023 HC-KAR he has admitted that he had sent Ex.D12 e-mail to the complainant. On going through this document it reveals that on 15.04.2012 the accused has sent this e-mail to the complainant. In this e-mail it is stated as follows.
"Please sent me a draft of payment made by me so far and clear everything by Tuesday".
20. On going through this e-mail it reveals that in the month of April itself the work was almost completed. The accused further admitted that after sending Ex.D12 e-mail he had issued two cheques to the complainant. Of course, the accused has stated that work is not completed. To show that work is not completed, the accused has not placed any materials before the court. He has further admitted that after discussion only he had issued two cheques. Such being the case, it is not possible to say that the work is incomplete. The accused has not examined any persons who completed the work subsequently. Mere say of the accused that work is incomplete is not sufficient to rebut the presumption available u/S. 139 of NI Act. He has to place cogent and convincing documents before the court to show that the work is incomplete. Except his self serving statement, there is no material on record to show that work is incomplete. Under such circumstances, in my opinion, the accused has failed to rebut presumption available u/S. 139 of NI Act.
21. On the other hand, it is not in dispute that Ex.P1 cheque was presented to the Bank in time. The demand notice was issued to the accused in time. There was 56 days day in filing the complaint before the trial court. After enquiry the trial court -7- NC: 2026:KHC:23374 CRL.RP No. 202 of 2023 HC-KAR has condoned that delay. Under such circumstances, it reveals that the complainant has proved the allegations made against the accused. Even though the accused has produced Ex.D1 to D14 documents, they are not sufficient to rebut the presumption. Under such circumstances, the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant is not acceptable one. In this regard, the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent is acceptable one. There is no third party report to show that the work was incomplete. There was no foundation for defence. More over the accused had stated that he will produced the agreement which was executed between the parties. But he has not produced the same. He has stated that he will produce the documents to show that work done by the complainant is sub-standard. Relating to this aspect also he has not produced any documents. Subsequently, he has not filed any case against the complainant for damages. Under such circumstances, the defence of the accused is not probable. In view of Ex.D12 e-mail, remaining e- mails will not come to the aid of the accused. From his oral and documentary evidence the complainant has successfully proved the allegations made against the accused.
22. I have gone through the judgment passed by the trial court. The trial court has scrutinized the oral and documentary evidence on record and has come to the conclusion that the complainant has successfully proved the allegations made in the complaint. The trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and has rightly convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Even after re-appreciation of the -8- NC: 2026:KHC:23374 CRL.RP No. 202 of 2023 HC-KAR entire evidence on record, I do not find any illegality or irregularity committed by the trial court in convicting this appellant / accused. Therefore, the appeal sans merit and liable to be dismissed. For the aforesaid reasons, point No.1 and 2 are answered in the NEGATIVE."
12. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused has filed the present revision petition on following grounds:-
Sri. Vasantha Madhava.S., learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition sought for allowing the revision petition by contending that there was no liability under Exhibit P2 and the cheques were issued in the police station after there were differences between the complainant and accused and as such, Exhibit P1 cheque did not carry any legally recoverable debt.
13. In addition to the grounds urged in the revision petition, Sri. Vasanth Madhava.S would also urge before the Court that banker of the accused was not required to act on the stop payment instruction as the cheque which is -9- NC: 2026:KHC:23374 CRL.RP No. 202 of 2023 HC-KAR dated 19.05.2012 was presented on 18.05.2012 itself for collection as could be seen from Exhibit P2 and therefore the very initiation of the proceedings before the trial magistrate is improper and sought for allowing the revision petition.
14. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgments.
15. He would further contend that even though the question of technical defence of presenting the cheque a day earlier to the date of the cheque is pressed into service for the first time before the Regional Court, what is to be looked into is cheque was dishonoured not on 18.05.2012 but on 19.05.2012, therefore such a defence is impermissible.
16. He would further contend that the material evidence on record has been properly appreciated and in the entire examination of DW1 or grounds urged before the First Appellate Court, technical defence is not pressed
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:23374 CRL.RP No. 202 of 2023 HC-KAR into service and therefore order of conviction is just and proper.
17. He also submits that in respect of Exhibit D7 to D14 there is extensive cross examination conducted by the learned counsel for petitioner and therefore in the absence of the certificate under Section 65B, the email correspondence between the parties could not have been relayed on by the Trial Magistrate and rightly rejected the evidentiary value of those documents and rightly convicted the accused and thus sought for dismissal of the revision petition.
18. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the matter on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, business relationship between the complainant and accused stands established inasmuch as a cheque given on 11.05.2012 by the accused in favour of the complainant in a sum of
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:23374 CRL.RP No. 202 of 2023 HC-KAR Rs.6,50,000/- bearing No.656806 dated 11.05.2012 stands encased.
19. But with regard to another cheque which is the marked at Exhibit P1 in the case on hand, there is a dispute whereby 'stop payment' instruction had been given by the accused to his banker. Banker of the accused has acted upon the 'stop payment' instruction and dishonoured the cheque marked at Exhibit P1.
20. In this regard, the contents of the reply notice assumes importance. Pertinently the question of the cheque being presented day earlier is not pressed into service in the reply notice which was the first occasion for the accused to contest the claim of the complainant. On the contrary, what has been stated in the reply notice that the work was not complete and therefore the cheque was not honoured by issuing the stop payments instructions.
21. Since the cheque is belonging to the complainant/accused and signature found therein is that of
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:23374 CRL.RP No. 202 of 2023 HC-KAR the accused and in view of the transaction between the parties, the Trial Magistrate was justified in raising the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sri.Rangappa -vs-Sri.Mohan reported in (2010) 11 SCC 441, presumption is raised by the Trial Magistrate in favour of complainant. Such a presumption is not absolute, but if there is a rebuttal evidence whereby complainant is required to prove his case further, the case would be again posted to leading the further evidence on behalf of the complainant as per the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Jain -vs- Ajay Singh reported in (2023) 10 SCC 148.
22. In that regard, the evidence placed on record by the parties assumes importance. Accused has specifically taken a contention in his examination that Exhibit P1 cheque was agreed to be encased after the remaining
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:23374 CRL.RP No. 202 of 2023 HC-KAR work is to be completed and there was an agreement in this regard.
23. In fact in his cross examination he reiterates that Exhibit P1 was to be encased after the completion of the work. But he has specifically admitted before the Court that no such agreement is placed before the Court. Further, Exhibit D7 is the document that is placed on record by the accused. It is nothing but the contents of reply notice which has been placed by the complainant himself. It is mentioned that after demand Exhibit D7 came to be issued and not earlier to Exhibit D7 there was no complaint that the work was not completed.
24. Further, he also admits that for forceful extraction of Exhibit P1 in the police station, no action has been taken by the accused. No normal prudent person would keep quiet especially after having a services of an advocate that if there is a forceful extraction of the cheque in the police station. It is also admission of accused that
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:23374 CRL.RP No. 202 of 2023 HC-KAR after the joint talks between the complainant and accused with regard to the dispute in non-completing the work, Exhibit P1 and the another cheque which was encased came to be issued.
25. Pertinently he further admits that after the encashment of the cheque dated 11.05.2012 in a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- he has also mentioned about the quality of the work but there is no document placed on record with regard to the quality of the work which was of substandard.
26. These aspects of the matter would make it clear that accused has not been able to establish before the Court that the Cheque marked at Exhibit P1 was not issued towards the repayment of the balance amount. Further, the email correspondence marked at Exhibit D14 is pressed into service by the accused before this Court. Exhibit D14 is not admitted by PW1 as is sought to be initiated before this Court by the counsel for accused.
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:23374 CRL.RP No. 202 of 2023 HC-KAR
27. On the contrary, there is a denial with regard to the quality of work being complained and no other document is placed on record. Further, Exhibit D14 is an email correspondence that has been placed on record without the certificate as is required under Section 65B of Evidence Act.
28. Under such circumstances, learned Trial Magistrate was justified in holding that the accused has failed to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and rightly convicted the accused for the said offence.
29. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after re-appreciating the material evidence on record, not only agreed with the finding recorded by the Trial Magistrate, but has also supplemented additional reasons to maintain the order of conviction as referred to supra.
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:23374 CRL.RP No. 202 of 2023 HC-KAR
30. Further, even before the First Appellate Court there was no ground raised with regard to the technical defence which is raised for the first time before this Court.
31. This Court while considering the plea of the accused that no criminal case would not have been initiated for technical reason that the cheque was presented on 18.05.2012 itself, bestowed its best attention to the material on record.
32. If the complainant wanted to suppress material facts, he would not have filed Exhibit P2 before the Court. He could have as well filed Exhibit P3 before the Court and kept Exhibit P2 with himself. Exhibit P2 is the cheque paying in slip filed by the complainant to his banker namely Canara Bank, Avenue Road Branch. It is no doubt filed into his banker for collection on 18.05.2012 which is evident from the date in the paying in slip and also the seal that has been affixed on the Exhibit P2. But what is to be relevant is when the said cheque was sent for
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:23374 CRL.RP No. 202 of 2023 HC-KAR collection. Admittedly as per Exhibit P3, the said cheque was sent to the collection on 19.05.2012 which is the cheque date and the cheque has been dishonoured with an endorsement payment stopped.
33. Therefore, the technical defence that is now sought to be canvassed before this Court for the first time holds no water.
34. Further, in order to wriggle out from the rigors of law for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, especially when the cheque is designed with a stop payment endorsement, it is expected from the accused that he must establish that as on the date of dishonour of the cheque with an endorsement with stop payment instructions, must show that sufficient balance was kept in his account as on the day and for valid reason this cheque came to be dishonoured.
35. Such material evidence is not placed on record by the accused. Therefore, even though the cheque is
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:23374 CRL.RP No. 202 of 2023 HC-KAR dishonoured with an endorsement, 'payment stopped by the drawer', it attracts the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
36. Accordingly, this Court does not find any reasons whatsoever much less good reasons to admit the revision petition for further consideration.
37. Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE VS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 31