Bangalore District Court
M/S Mahathru Technologies vs M/S Creative Infotech on 16 April, 2025
KABC010013772025
IN THE COURT OF LXV ADDL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY (CCH-66)
PRESENT
SRI. HEMANTH KUMAR C.R. B.A.L., L.L.B.,
LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 16th day of April, 2025
Crl.A.No.119/2025
Petitioner: M/s Mahathru Technologies,
Rept. by its Proprietor,
Mrs. Pranitha H.G.
Office at No.18/2, 1st Floor,
12th Cross, 8th Main,
Wilson Garden,
Bengaluru -27.
(By Sri. A.M., Advocate)
-Vs-
Respondent: M/s. Creative Infotech,
Rept. by its Proprietor,
Mohit R. Hegde,
Office at S-108, 1st Floor,
South Block, Manipal Center
Dickenson Road, Bengaluru.
(By Sri. N.A.S, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellant u/s.374 of Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the XI ASCJ and ACJM, Bengaluru in C.C.No.60105/2018 dated 19.12.2024.
2. Brief facts of the case:
The accused is one the customer of complainant company, which is dealer of Apple computer. The complainant used to supply the 2 Crl.A.No.119/2025 materials to the accused on credit basis by raising invoices for the supply of products and maintaining the running account. The accused has taken the desktop and laptop on credit basis from 07.09.2018 to 16.10.2018 by raising eleven invoices for total amount of Rs.5,25,75,797/-. The accused has not paid the said invoice amount and on repeated demands, the accused paid some amount and thereafter they have issued cheque bearing No.969463 dated 26.10.2018 for a sum of Rs.2,85,56,920/- and another cheque bearing No.969464 dated 29.10.2018 for a sum of Rs.2,09,24,812/- drawn on Yes Bank Ltd, Avenue road branch, Bengaluru in favour of complainant. On the instruction of accused, the complainant presented the said cheques for encashment on 26.10.2018 and on 29.10.2018 through the Syndicate Bank, M.G. Road branch, Bengaluru, but the said cheques were dishonoured due to 'payment stopped by drawer' vide endorsement dated 30.10.2018. As such, the complainant got issued legal notice on 07.11.2018 calling the accused to make cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of legal notice and the same was served to the accused on 12.11.2018. In spite of service of notice, the accused has not paid the cheque amount, but sent untenable reply on 30.11.2018. Hence, the complainant filed the complaint u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.
3. The trial Court after receiving the complaint has registered the case in PCR and sworn statement of the complainant was recorded and cognizance was taken for the offence punishable u/s.138 of NI Act and issued summons to the accused. The accused having been served with the summons, has appeared through his advocate and obtained bail and the plea of the accused was recorded and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The complainant 3 Crl.A.No.119/2025 got examined its Proprietor- Mohith R. Hegde as P.W.1 and has filed her affidavit and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.42 documents. The accused has examined its Proprietor- Pranitha H.G. as D.W.1 and one Sharath Gowda as D.W.2 and got marked Exs.D.1 to 53 documents in support of his defense. C.W.1- Dr. Manjugowda Patil, FSL Expert is examined and through him Ex.C.1- Commissioner report is marked. The statement of the accused as required u/s.313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein she has denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him. The trial Court after having heard the arguments of both parties, has convicted the accused for the offence punishable u/s.138 of NI Act, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.4,94,91,732/- and in default, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.
4. The appellant/ accused being aggrieved by the same has preferred the present appeal on the following among other grounds:
The appellant submits that the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court is highly illegal, unjust and arbitrary and the same has been passed without considering the material on record in its proper perspective. The trial Court has only made the observation of the contention of complainant and has brushed away the crucial contention of the accused. The trial Court has failed to acknowledge the contradiction raised by the complainant with respect to misappropriation of materials and cheating by the accused before passing its impugned judgment. The appellant further submits that the blank unsigned cheques of accused are misused by the complainant by forging the signature of accused and by presenting the same for encashment. In this regard, D.Ws.1 and 2 have filed a complaint in Cr.No.34/2019 with Wilson Garden Police station against the complainant. The appellant further submits the e-way bills are not 4 Crl.A.No.119/2025 generated on the same day of supply of materials to the accused. the complainant has not produced the invoice containing UDID numbers only in order to suppress the material facts before the Court. Though the trial Court has observed in the impugned judgment that the complainant has not submitted the CRT claims, it has completely failed to draw an adverse inference in favour of complainant as per the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl.A.No.1031/2024. The trial Court has blindly passed the impugned judgment in an arbitrary manner in spite of observing that the dispute between the parties has to be resolved as per the terms of the reseller agreement. The trial Court has not observed the contention taken by P.W.1 in the cross-examination that the misappropriation of the materials in collusion with the staff of complainant. The averments made in the complaint is on a different footing that the complainant supplied the materials as per the 11 invoices to the accused on credit basis. The complainant had not whispered any payment towards the eleven invoices as he contended in his PCR and as such, the complainant is constrained to file a recovery suit claiming the said amount with interest. The issuance of legal notice is an afterthought in order to extort money from the accused and this defence of accused was not at all considered by the trial Court. It has also failed to observe that the accused had very much disputed the invoices and also in his reply, the accused has stated that he had cleared all the payments to the complainant. The appellant further submits that the entire complaint is an afterthought meticulously planned by the complainant in order to take full advantage of the advance payment made by the accused. The appellant further submits that he had given the unsigned blank cheques to the complainant upon his insistence solely for the purpose of credit enhancement of the complainant with his distributors. The 5 Crl.A.No.119/2025 accused had cleared the entire amount in the eleven invoices which clearly established from bank statements at Exs.D.25 and 26. Ex.D.23 proves that the said cheques were being obtained only for reference and not for banking. The complainant has stated that he is not aware of transactions that has taken place in connection with eleven invoices as D.W.2, Kavitha and Vasudha had colluded with each other and has misappropriated the same. The evidence of P.W.1 clearly establishes that he would receive an intimation on his email whenever order is placed. The complainant has even resorted to manipulating the dates of payment to attempt to show the amount allegedly due from the accused. The trial Court has failed to consider that the complainant has not filed the instant case for the alleged balance due, but for the alleged payment towards the eleven invoices. Upon analyzing and examining the disputed signature on the cheque, the FSL opined that the signatures are 'negative authorship'. The risk controller unit of the bank has also opined that the specimen signatures had mismatched with the disputed cheque. The trial Court though has observed regarding FSL report, fell short in it considering the report as is. The appellant further submits that CCTV would clearly establish that the admitted had never handed over any cheques to the complainant on 24.10.2018 as alleged by him. The trial Court has failed to consider that the complainant has not produced the CCTV footage to prove his case though it is his case that the cheques were handed over to the complainant by D.W.2 and P.W.1 has produced a CD with the Ulsoor Police in Cr.No.421/2018. The accused had produced several documents that establishes that he does not have any legally enforceable liability toward the complainant. The presumption favouring the can fail if the accused is able to raise a probable defence which creates doubt about the existence of a legally enforceable debt.6 Crl.A.No.119/2025
The appellant further submits that the complainant has miserably failed to satisfy the ingredients of mandatory demand notice u/s.138 of NI Act. The accused had provided detailed evidence including the bank statements at Exs.D.25 and 26 rebutted all the allegations of the complainant against the accused. The trial Court has passed the judgment without application of its mind and not understanding the basic methodology of the procedure obtained by the expert in rendering his opinion on the disputed cheques. The arbitrary observation made by the trial Court is bad in law and the same do not hold water. The trial Court has wrongly observed that there were no cheques of accused available with the complainant so that the complainant could copy the signature. The appellant further submits that P.W.1 in the cross-examination has admitted that the Apple company has terminated the agreement with the complainant in the year 2020 for forgery, manipulation of invoices and this shows light on the conduct of complainant who indeed had not approached the the trial Court with clean hands. The trial Court has failed to appreciate the several factors existed in the case and has erroneously passed the impugned judgment. The appellant further submits that the complainant has failed to provide any other document to prove presumption u/s.139 of NI Act, which was rebutted by the accused. the trial Court passed the impugned judgment without even considering the fact that the accused had established beyond preponderance of probabilities and the accused ought to have been acquitted. The appellant further submits that the trial Court without even considering the merits in the accused arguments has biasedly passed the impugned judgment. Hence, the appellant prays to set aside the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court and acquit him for the offence punishable u/s.138 of NI Act in accordance with law.
7 Crl.A.No.119/20255. After registering the appeal, on issuance of notice, respondent appeared through his counsel. The trial Court records were secured. In the present case, the appellant has challenged the orders passed on I.A.No.1 by this Court before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl.P.No.1466/2025, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has allowed the petition and dispensed the deposit of 20% of deposit and directed this Court to dispose the appeal within time frame.
6. Heard the arguments of both sides. I have gone through the trial Court records, the impugned judgment of conviction and the grounds urged in the appeal memo.
7. In the light of grounds urged in the appeal memo, the following points arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the appellant has made out sufficient grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of conviction?
2. What Order?
8. My findings on the above points are:
Point No.1: In the negative, Point No.2: As per the final order, for the following:
REASONS
9. Point No.1: The appellant counsel has addressed the arguments and also has filed written arguments contending that the appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 19.12.2024 passed by the trial Court has preferred this appeal. The appellant has addressed the arguments contending that appeal may be read as part and parcel of the written arguments and the appellant having filed the return arguments has contended that the complaint portion of claim is that the accused has failed to make payment towards 11 invoices, for which the disputed 8 Crl.A.No.119/2025 cheques are issued by the accused at the complainant office on 24.10.2018. The accused has denied any issuance of signed cheque to the complainant since the beginning of the trial. The trial Court without appreciating the materials placed on record by the accused as well as not taking into consideration of the witness, who has been examined on her behalf as DW2, wherein the accused was able to revert the presumption levelled against her as per Sec.139 of NI Act and the entire judgment passed by the trial Court has not made any efforts to make an observation of contention taken by the accused. The trial Court has justified the version of complaint. Explanation lacked merits and documents by the trial Court and failed to examine the material evidence produced by the accused.
10. The appellant counsel has addressed the arguments with respect to forgery of signature of the accused. The appellant counsel has contended that the DW1, the husband of the accused, had given blank and unsigned cheques to the complainant and the accused has disputed the signature on these cheques since the beginning of the case, stating that the complainant had forged the signature of the accused. The accused having taken the contention has issued the reply notice to complainant as per Ex.P.9 and the accused has disputed the signature on the cheques, the forgery done by the complainant is strengthened by the fact that several independent experts and authorities have asserted the fact that the signature of the accused does not match with the bank records and the fact that the reports of the forensic experts have written clearly stating that the signatures on disputed cheques do not match with the accused signature and the expert have regarded it as an imitation forgery. The appellant has further contended that the complainant having misused the cheques, the accused and her husband had approached 9 Crl.A.No.119/2025 Wilson-Garden Police Station and filed a complaint against the complainant and his staff members in Cr.No.34/2019 as per Exs.P.14 and 15, and during the investigation of the complaint, the Police had summoned the Bank Manager to confirm the authenticity of the signature of the cheques. Accordingly, the Bank Manager has issued letter dated 11.03.2019 to the Wilson Garden Police Station clearly stating that the signature of the accused on cheques was found to be mismatching as per bank records, which is marked as Ex.D.7. The accused has also disputed the signature on the cheques, and he has also filed an application to refer the signature to the forensic expert. The said application came to be allowed and the forensic expert has examined the signature of the accused on the cheques and has given the detailed report stating that the signature on the cheque was an imitation forgery and the said report is marked as Ex.C.1.
11. The appellant counsel has further contended that investigating officer had issued notice to the concerned bank of the accused to provide details of the cheques in question and in this regard, the bank manager of the concerned bank has issued letter to the investigating officer stating that the signature in the disputed cheques in question is not that of the accused person. The expert opinion as well as the letter issued by the Bank Manager, which is marked at Ex.D.7 is in favor of the accused. As such, it is solely not on the expert opinion that the trial Court has to rely, but also as per Ex.P.7, which is corroborative evidence for the said expert opinion that the trial Court ought to have drawn adverse inference that the signatures on the disputed cheques, which are not that of the accused. There is also other corroborative evidence that the trial Court could have considered is the reply notice, which is marked as Ex.P.9, wherein the accused has categorically 10 Crl.A.No.119/2025 stated that the complainant has used the disputed cheques which were unfilled and unsigned. The said facts and circumstances and material placed on record throws light and it goes to show that the cheques in dispute are not signed by the accused. The appellant has also further contended that the complainant during his final arguments before the trial Court has taken the contention that the complainant did not have a model signature to even forge the signature of the accused as the said contention was never taken by the complainant during the trial and it was only during the arguments it was taken and accused had no opportunity to rebut the contention of the complainant along with documents. The appellant has also contended that to rebut the contention of the complainant, the accused has filed a memo on 27.03.2025 before this Court and has produced Whatsapp chat with the complainant, wherein DW2, the husband of the accused has sent the photograph of the RTGS form containing the signature of the accused to the complainant.
12. The appellant has also addressed the arguments contending that in the Ex.D.23, it is clearly informed to the husband of accused- DW2 that the cheque was only for reference and not for banking purpose. The trial Court in the entire judgment has nowhere even whispered regarding Ex.D.23. The appellant has also contended that the experts who have given their opinion on three cheques have elaborated on the disputed signature as to how they are different from the standard signature found on the appropriate signatures of the accused on government documents as well as signature forms in A4 sheet. As such, the appellant has contended that the contention of the complainant cannot be believed that the accused had signed the disputed cheques and the same were handed over to the complainant 11 Crl.A.No.119/2025 through DW2- Sharath Gowda for banking purpose. The Ex.D.23 establishes the same and the staff of the complainant on his request has requested for the cheques to maintain good business relationship with the complainant. The DW2 having agreed to hand over unsigned blank cheques and the DW2- the husband of the accused was clearly assured that the cheques are not for banking purpose and are only for reference.
13. The appellant has addressed the arguments with respect to 11 invoices, wherein the appellant has contended that the case of the complainant is that the accused has not paid any payment towards the disputed invoices and the accused has accordingly issued the cheques towards the said amount. The appellant has contended that the accused has made payment towards 11 invoices. The said fact is clearly established from the material available before the Court i.e., the bank statement produced by accused. The appellant has contended that the Apple Distributor i.e. Ingram and Reddington have supplied the materials at the instance of the complainant. The accused has collected the materials and thereafter has sold the same to their customers. As soon as the accused received the payment from the respective customers, the accused has transferred the amount to the complainant. The total amount paid by the accused to the complainant between 03.08.2018 to 16.10.2018 towards all the 11 invoices is Rs. 4.79 crores. The further contention of the appellant is that the Exs.D.29 and Ex.P.42 are the invoices of the Apple Distributors i.e, Ingram and Reddington containing the UDID numbers and these invoices are raised on the complainant, when the complainant received the products from its distributors i.e. Ingram and Reddington. These products were collected by the accused at the instance of the 12 Crl.A.No.119/2025 complainant, who further sold it to his customers. The same are reflecting in Ex.D.28 and later, the complainant raised invoices for the same UDID number, but under different dates, which are marked at Exs.P.1 and P17 and they are not matching with the invoice dated of Ex.D.29, Ex.D.42 and Ex.D.28.
14. The accused has taken the contention that the accused has clearly established this transaction before the trial Court, where the complainant has argued that the payment was towards an older due and even the trial Court without application of its judicial mind blindly and arbitrarily believed the contention of the complainant, even though this contention was not even the case of the complainant since beginning and the appellant has further contended that the trial Court even went to an extent to observe that though the accused has made payment to the complainant, the accused could not prove that the payment was towards the 11 invoices, the appellant has also further contended that it is not possible to establish an invoice to invoice transaction in a running account since it is a running account even the complainant failed to establish the older due against which older invoices and UDID number this Rs.4.79 crore payment was adjusted. The appellant has also contended that the complainant did not produce any invoice or whatsoever to show that the money transferred to the complainant as per Exs.D.25 and 26 was towards the other invoices and not the 11 invoices and the complainant has failed to show basic transaction through invoices and the trial Court out-rightly ought to have dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused.
15. The appellant has further contended that the accused has transferred huge amount to the complainant which are reflecting in the 13 Crl.A.No.119/2025 bank statements of the accused as per Exs.D.25 and 26 and the complainant has not assigned any explanation or even disputed during the entire trial. The trial Court has vaguely stated that the accused has shown several payments made to the complainant but the same do not show the said payment is towards 11 invoices. The said observation holds no water as the payment has been made by the accused on all the invoices as per the date mentioned in the distributor invoice as well as the invoices of the accused, which is marked as Ex.D.28. The appellant has also contended that during the investigation, the Halasur Police has procured the documents, the invoice details of complainant, invoices of accused, the distributor invoice and invoices of the customer of the accused along with their statement and ledger extract for having transacted with the accused. All these documents are collectively marked as Ex.D.13, which throws light in the instant case where the materials produced as per the 11 invoices are categorically sold to the appropriate customers and the amount towards such supply has been reflecting in the bank statement. Importantly, the UDID numbers mentioned in the distributors invoice in Ex.D.29 and Ex.D.42 when compared to invoices of the accused in Exs.D.29 and Ex.D28 the invoices of the customer of the accused reveals that the same product which were received by complainant by his distributors in 11 invoices were sold to the customers by the accused even the payment made between 03.08.2018 to 16.10.2018 was towards the very 11 invoices and not any older due as alleged by the complainant. The appellant has contended that the complaint contention was true, the trial Court ought to have drawn adverse inference against the complainant for non-production of the invoices with UDID numbers against which Rs.4.79 crores was adjusted. The appellant has also contended that the UDID numbers in the invoices of the accused to his 14 Crl.A.No.119/2025 customers also perfectly match with the 11 invoices of complainant which are marked as Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.17 and it clearly establishes that the product invoices at Ex.P.1 and P17 are the same as that of the product in invoice at Ex.D.28. As such, the payment made at Exs.D.25 and D.26 was towards the 11 invoices. The appellant has also contended that the complainant during the cross-examination of DW1 and DW2, in both the cases, has not disputed the Exs.D.25 and 26. With respect to the Mathru Technologies had already made payment entirely towards 11 invoices and the complainant has misused the disputed cheques only in order to harass and make unlawful gains from DWs.1 and 2.
16. The appellant has contended that the PW1 during his cross- examination has stated that the accused husband has collected the laptops from the distributor's godown pertaining to 11 invoices without his knowledge in collusion with his staff- Kavitha and Vasudha, but the statement is false and the same can be established from the fact that the DW2 has collected only twice from the distributor's godown in relation to the said 11 invoices rest of the laptops in relation to 11 invoices were collected directly from the Godown of Creative Infotech and the same can be established from Ex.D.29 at Page 2 which is invoice bearing No.G491441 raised by Reddington office at Delhi to the office of Creative Infotech at Bangalore on 07.09.2018 through blue dart courier. The laptops with respect to invoice No.G491441 were supplied to DW2 through invoice No.358 and the laptops were collected from the godown of the compliant and similarly, Ex.D.29- the invoice raised by Ingram Micro Private Limited through its invoice No.GD120581347810 dated 11.09.2018 and the same were sent from Ingram office at New Delhi to the office of Creative Infotech at 15 Crl.A.No.119/2025 Bangalore through Blue Dart Courier. The laptops pertaining to invoice were supplied to DW2 through invoice No.362 and the laptops were collected from the godown of the complainant. The appellant has also contended that Ex.D.33- group chat where complainant and his two employees informed about the alleged materials in 11 invoices in page No.880 of Ex.D.33 and the complainant signature on page No.883 says that he had complete knowledge about this transaction.
17. The appellant has further addressed the arguments contending that the case of the complainant that the cheques were handed over to the complainant by DW2 on 24.10.2018 and in this regard, the PW1 has also produced a CD before the Police station in Cr.No.421/2018 alleging that the DW1 has signed all the Invoices ledger of the complainant issued the three disputed cheques towards the alleged discharge of liability. The CCTV would establish clearly the amount of force physically and verbally employed by the complainant Mohit Hegde and his accomplice Meera Bhatt and others physically put the accused husband in fear to sign the ledger. The appellant has also contended that the content present in the CD - Ex.D.24, which is the record of the events on 24.10.2018 at the complainant's office and the claim of the complainant was genuine. The report filed by the Police at Ex.D.24 should contain details about the accused husband handing over the cheque to the complainant. The appellant has contended that the accused has rebutted the allegation of the very incident of handing over the cheques to the complainant and the burden shifted to the complainant and the complainant ought to have produced the CCTV footage before the trial Court. But the trial Court has put entire burden on the accused even though the accused has clearly rebutted the allegation and shifted the burden back to the complainant. If the CCTV 16 Crl.A.No.119/2025 footage has been produced before the trial Court, it would have been clear that the accused has handed over the cheques to the complainant on 24.10.2018 as alleged by him and thus the version of the accused would have been proved to be genuine.
18. The appellant has addressed the arguments contending that in the invoice No.100, the complainant has manipulated the invoice to the sum of Rs.61,83,410/-, whereas the accused has received the products through invoice No.88, 94 and the payment was already made to the complainant for the said products received in invoice No.100, but the complainant has manipulated the invoices in a manner to show that the accused is due for the product which has been already paid and he has repeated twice only to demand payment for the invoices. The appellant has also contended that Ex.D.52 shows that the invoice No.100, it never existed as on that date i.e. 06.06.2018. The appellant has also further contended that the invoice No.188 dated 28.06.2018 has been mentioned in several UDID numbers for a sum of Rs.1,91,29,977/-, for which, the accused has already paid the amount vide invoice No.140, 160, 141, 187 and 120. The complainant has manipulated the said invoices and added the same UDID numbers as in invoice No.140, 160, 141, 187 and 120 even in invoice No.188, and the complainant has manipulated and repeated the UDID numbers in invoice No.188 claiming the amount from the accused, which has been already paid by him. The appellant has also contended that with respect to invoice No.296 dated 24.07.2018, the complainant has raised an invoice for a sum of Rs.95,71,488/- which was the accused has already paid for the UDID number in invoice No.296 vide invoices No.207, 208, 194, 267 and
319. The complainant has repeated the UDID numbers in invoice 17 Crl.A.No.119/2025 No.296 even though the accused has completely made the payment for the said products in invoice No. 207, 208, 194, 267 and 319, wherein the complainant has intentionally repeated the same UDID numbers with sole intention to make accused liable to make payment twice for the same transaction.
19. The appellant has contended that during the cross-examination of PW1 on 22.09.2022 and 31.10.2022, the PW1 has admitted the repetition of UDID numbers and the appellant has contended that the complainant has handed over these documents before the concerned Police on his will and supervision, complainant cannot at this juncture take shelter stating that such reputation is at the instance of accused Sharath and his employees who have created the same. The said fact clearly establishes that the complainant has cleverly manipulated the invoices and repeated the UDID numbers and billed the accused twice for the same transaction wherein the accused has already made a payment to the complainant company for the products that were received by the accused in the genuine invoices and he has further contended that the DW2 has sought clarification from the complainant on certain invoices through email dated 15.11.2018 marked at Ex.D.50. The complainant did not bother to respond and he remained silent for the reason best known to him.
20. The appellant has contended that the complainant has not mentioned any claim about the 11 invoices or cheques being issued towards alleged payment towards 11 invoices in his legal notice dated 07.11.2018 and also has further contended that in the complaint dated 09.11.2018 filed by the complainant, there is absence of mention about the alleged 11 invoices and nowhere whispered any due 18 Crl.A.No.119/2025 towards the alleged 11 invoices or the allegation that the disputed cheques were issued towards the alleged 11 invoices. The complainant has never in the entirety of his notice has ever claimed any payment for the 11 invoices and the arguments of the complainant that the liability of the accused towards the payment of 11 invoices is clearly an afterthought in order to extort money from the accused. The appellant has contended that he having issued the reply notice dated 30.11.2018 has taken the contention that all the payments in the course of genuine business which is supply of products and goods are made through online transaction and the various statement implies that the accused has made all payments to the complainant.
21. The appellant has addressed arguments with respect to conduct of the complainant with respect to history of forging signatures. The appellant has contended that the complaint on 22.12.2017 has re- ceived a caution notice from Apple India Private Limited warning the complainant that he has submitted his CRT claims with the signature acknowledgment of a registrar who has already resigned from his post way before the laptops were even delivered to him. The appellant has also further contended that the complainant has submitted forged and fake invoices to Apple India Private Limited claiming discount even though the complainant had not sold the laptops to the educational in- stitutions. When the Apple India Private Limited found out about the same concocted by the complainant, they issued caution notice to the complainant. Debunking his lie and clearly stating that the signature made by the registrar in the invoice submitted by the complainant was not a genuine one since the registrar had resigned the institution way before the complainant allegedly sold the laptops to the educational in- stitution. The appellant has also contended that the accused having 19 Crl.A.No.119/2025 confronted the complaint with the caution notice issued by the Apple India private limited, the complainant conveniently once again puts the entire blame on late miss Kavitha and states that the false CRT claim were done by Kavitha in collusion with the accused.
22. The appellant has further contended that the complainant himself has orchestrated the plan to forgo the invoices and claim CRT falsely because the answer is so apparent on the face of it that the complainant has diverted his version and played fraud on this Court. The appellant has also contended that the accused had preferred an application u/s.91 of Cr.P.C. before the trial Court seeking to summon the representative of Apple company to bring documents for the period 2016 and 2020 along with invoices and the trial Court has partly allowed the said application by order dated 18.12.2023 directing the complainant to produce the documents relating to CRT claims along with invoices containing UDID numbers for the year 2018, if any, agreed by the same, the accused approached the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and Crl.P.No.1031/2024, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in its order dated 28.06.2024 has observed that in case the document sought in the application is not produced, the accused can always work out his right in accordance with law and the trial Court can draw adverse inference. The appellant has contended that the complainant has not produced any documents as sought in the application and has not complied with the order of the trial Court and also the appellant has contended that the Apple India Pvt. Ltd. terminated the contract with complainant in the year 2020, why would the contract be terminated much after the complainant employees quit his office and much later the present cheques bounce cases were 20 Crl.A.No.119/2025 filed, which indicates that the complainant continued to forge and claim fake CRT claims even after his employees quit and even after he filed cheques bounce case against the accused and consequently, the agreement between Apple India Pvt. Ltd. was terminated. This itself establishes that the complainant forged the signatures and faked CRT claim. The appellant has also contended that the complainant has created fake invoices and has been seeking payment from the accused, for which, the accused has already paid and the accused having led evidence and having produced Exs.D.25 and 26 reverted the allegations of the complainant and as such, the accused need not provide detailed evidence to rebut the presumption u/s.139 and 118 of NI Act. The accused ought to provide evidence in order to rebut the presumption, in the present case, the accused has provided detailed evidence and has rebutted the presumption and the complainant has failed to negate any evidence of the accused. As such, the complainant has failed to provide any other documents other than enjoying the presumption u/s.139 of the NI Act which was rebutted by the accused in a detailed manner. Hence, the applicant praised that he has not committed an offence u/s.138 of NI Act and prays to allow the appeal. The appellant has relied on the following citations:
1) (2020) 3 SCC 35 (Padum Kumar -Vs- State of Uttar Pradsh)
2) ILR 2016 KAR 3732 (Smt. Nasreen Pasha -Vs- Sri. Malik Ahmed) 21 Crl.A.No.119/2025
23. The complainant has addressed the arguments contending that the complainant is a proprietorship concern and they are dealers of Apple computer and accessories and the accused is one of the customer and used to supply computer and accessories as per the order of the accused and the complainant used to send the material on credit basis and also on the invoice for supply of products and is maintaining the running account. The complainant has further contended that the accused has taken the laptop and desktop computers on credit basis from 07.09.2018 to 16.10.2018 and with respect to the same, they have raised invoices for supply of products. As per the 11 invoices, the accused has not paid the amount as agreed by them and on repeated request for payment, the accused had paid sum amount and on follow-ups, the accused has issued cheque bearing No.969463 dated 26.10.2018 for a sum of Rs.2,85,56,920/- and another cheque bearing No.969464 dated 29.10.2018 for a sum of Rs.2,09,24,812/- drawn on Yes Bank Ltd. Avenue Road branch, Bangalore towards discharge of legal dues on 16.10.2018. The complainant on the instructions of the accused has presented the said cheques for encashment on 26.10.2018 and on 29.10.2018 through his banker Syndicate bank, High Groud Branch, Bangalore. But the said cheques were dishonoured due to payment stopped by the bank vide endorsement dated 30.10.2018. With respect to this, the complainant got issued legal notice dated 07.11.2018 calling upon the accused to make payment due under the cheque within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice. The notice having been served on 12.11.2018, the accused has not complied with the demand notice made by the complainant with respect to payment of amount due under the cheque. The accused has issued reply notice dated 30.11.2018. The accused having not complied with the notice, 22 Crl.A.No.119/2025 the complainant has filed the present complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate and the complainant to prove his case has led the evidence and got examined as PW1 got marked Exs.P.12 and P.25 documents and the PW1 has been fully cross-examined by the accused with respect to his defense and the accused has led the evidence as DW1 and also got examined the witness as DW2. The DW1 has been cross-examined by the complainant and Exs.P.26 to 34 are marked by confronting the same to DW1 and the Exs.P.35 to 45 documents are marked during the cross examination of DW2 through confrontation.
24. The complainant has addressed the arguments contending that he has complied all the requirements u/s.138 of NI Act and the presumption u/s.139 of NI Act. The complainant counsel has further contended that the cheque is presented within the period of its validity and it is returned unpaid for the reason 'payment stopped by drawer' and the notice having been issued, the same having been served, the accused has not complied with the notice. The complainant counsel has also contended that the cheques issued by the accused were for the purpose of legally enforceable debt and also further contended that the accused had filed the complaint before the Wilson Garden, Police station in Cr.No.34/2019 against the complainant and the same having been challenged by the complainant before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, the said complaint came to be rejected by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and the accused had challenged the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by preferring the SLP. The complainant counsel has also contended that the said SLP has also been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the order of the High Court has been confirmed. The complainant 23 Crl.A.No.119/2025 counsel has contended that the accused had issued the cheque with respect to payment due under 11 invoices which amounted to Rs.5,25,75,797/-. The complainant counsel has also further contended that the accused had filed the complaint against the complainant alleging that he has forged the cheque and filed the present case and cheated the accused. The said FIR has been quashed by the Hon'ble Court of Karnataka and also further contended that the complainant has also filed commercial O.S.No.514/2021 against the accused persons and the staff of the complainant by paying the requisite Court fee. The complainant counsel has further addressed the arguments contending that the accused has endorsed on Ex.P.20 with respect to the admitted liability amount of Rs.2.9 crores and also has further contended that the Exs.P.21 and 22 are the complaint filed by Kavitha and her husband against the accused. The complainant counsel has also further contended that the claim of the complainant is with respect to the 11 invoices only and also has contended that the PW1 in the cross-examination has stated that the staff of the complainant have sent the products to the accused without a bill and also has contended that the accused had filed the complaint against the complainant in Cr.No.34/2019 before the Wilson Garden Police station and the said contention of the accused is that the cheque was issued to the complainant for the accounting purpose and the same was taken by the complainant by force and by threat. The complainant has contended that the said complaint filed by the accused has been quashed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also has contended that the IT returns filed by the accused for the year 2019, he has shown that the amount mentioned in the cheque is due from the accused. The contention of the accused that the cheque was given to the complainant for the purpose of accounting does not survive for 24 Crl.A.No.119/2025 consideration as the complaint filed by the accused with respect to the same before the Wilson Garden Police has been quashed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The complaint has contended that the defence of the accused is that no materials has been supplied under 11 invoices and the complainant counsel has contended that the DW2- Sharath Gowda has been admitted the liability and acknowledged the liability on 24.10.2018 and he has endorsed the same on Ex.P.20. With respect to the same, the accused having taken the contention that the same has been obtained by fraud and threat, and with respect to the same, no complaint or any legal steps has been taken by the accused except filing the complaint on 26.02.2019 before the Wilson Garden Police station that too after the presentation of the cheque. The complainant counsel has also contended that he having cross- examined the DW1 has admitted that her husband Sharath Gowda- DW2 was looking after the company and the complainant has contended that the accused company being the proprietorship company has not given any authorization or power of attorney in favor of DW2.
25. The complainant counsel has also addressed the arguments contending that the DW1 has not stated for what reason the stop payment has been issued and also has further contended that she does not know the reason why the stop payment was given and further has admitted in the cross examination that the stop payment letter has been given and signed by DW1 and the same was given to the bank by her husband. The complainant counsel has also addressed the arguments contending that the 11 invoices tallies with Ex.D.30 and the same corroborates with Ex.P.20. The complainant counsel has also addressed the arguments contending that the evidence of the FSL 25 Crl.A.No.119/2025 expert cannot be believed as the opinion of the expert is that the forgery is imitation forgery and also the complainant counsel has contended that the complainant had no opportunity to see the signature of the accused as the entire transaction being conducted by the husband of accused was through online and also has contended that there is no model signature available by which imitation forgery could have been made on the cheques. The complainant counsel has also contended that the DW1 has stated that she was not involved in the business and her husband DW2 was carrying out the business. As such, the complaint has contended that there was no opportunity for the complaint to see the signature of DW1 to commit imitation forgery. The complainant counsel has also addressed the arguments contending that the signatures are not forged and has taken the contention that the expert has not mentioned with respect to similarities and dissimilarities between the admitted and disputed signature depending upon each character's stroke and movements. The complainant has also contended that the accused has taken the contention that the accused has paid the amount due under the 11 invoices with respect to the same. The complainant has contended that the invoices and running account ledger has been produced. The ledger extract has been signed by DW2 and also the accused has produced his own ledger extract at Ex.D.43 and the bank statement to show that the accused has paid the amount due under the 11 invoices, as such, the invoices raised with the accused by complainant are fake with respect to the said contention the accused has not produced any documents. Hence the complainant prays to dismiss the appeal and confirm the judgment of the trial Court and has relied on the following citations:
26 Crl.A.No.119/20251. Rangappa -Vs- Sri Mohan (2010) 11 SCC 441
2. Padum Kumar -Vs- Stae of Uttar Pradesh (2020) 3 SCC 35
3. Rajesh Jain -Vs- Ajay Singh (2023) 10 SCC 148
4. Laxmi Dyechem -Vs- State of Gujarath and others (2012) 13 SCC 375
26. On perusal of the records the case of the complainant is that the accused is one the customer of complainant company, which is dealer of Apple computer. The complainant used to supply the materials to the accused on credit basis by raising invoices for the supply of products and maintaining the running account. The accused has taken the desktop and laptop on credit basis from 07.09.2018 to 16.10.2018 by raising eleven invoices for total amount of Rs.5,25,75,797/-. The accused has not paid the said invoice amount and on repeated demands, the accused paid some amount and thereafter they have issued cheque bearing No.969463 dated 26.10.2018 for a sum of Rs.2,85,56,920/- and another cheque bearing No.969464 dated 29.10.2018 for a sum of Rs.2,09,24,812/- drawn on Yes Bank Ltd, Avenue road branch, Bengaluru in favour of complainant. On the instruction of accused, the complainant presented the said cheques for encashment on 26.10.2018 and on 29.10.2018 through the Syndicate Bank, M.G. Road branch, Bengaluru, but the said cheques were dishonoured due to 'payment stopped by drawer' vide endorsement dated 30.10.2018. As such, the complainant got issued legal notice on 07.11.2018 calling the accused to make cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of legal notice and the same was served to the accused on 12.11.2018. In spite of service of notice, the 27 Crl.A.No.119/2025 accused has not paid the cheque amount, but sent untenable reply on 30.11.2018. Hence, the complainant filed the complaint u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The trial Court after receiving the complaint has registered the case in PCR and sworn statement of the complainant was recorded and cognizance was taken for the offence punishable u/s.138 of NI Act and issued summons to the accused. The accused having been served with the summons, has appeared through his advocate and obtained bail and the plea of the accused was recorded and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The complainant got examined its Proprietor- Mohith R. Hegde as P.W.1 and has filed her affidavit and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.42 documents. The accused has examined its Proprietor- Pranitha H.G. as D.W.1 and one Sharath Gowda as D.W.2 and got marked Exs.D.1 to 53 documents in support of his defense. C.W.1- Dr. Manjugowda Patil, FSL Expert is examined and through him Ex.C.1- Commissioner report is marked. The statement of the accused as required u/s.313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein she has denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him. The trial Court after having heard the arguments of both parties, has convicted the accused for the offence punishable u/s.138 of NI Act, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.4,94,91,732/- and in default, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.
27. The accused has taken the contention that the signature on the cheques has been forged and they have taken the contention that the signature on the documents was taken by force and threat. With respect to the same, the accused has also taken the first stand in the reply notice issued by the accused as per Ex.P.9 and accused has disputed the signature on cheques and they have contended that the 28 Crl.A.No.119/2025 complainant has forged the signatures of the accused on the cheques. The accused to substantiate the said contention has also filed the complaint before the Wilson Garden Police Station in 03.04.2019 and also the accused has got marked the letter issued by the manager dated 11.05.2019 to the Wilson Garden Police Station as per Ex.D.7, wherein the manager has issued the letter stating that the signature of the accused on the cheques was found to be mismatching as per the records. The accused with respect to this has also filed application before the trial Court u/s.45 of the Indian Evidence Act to refer the disputed signature on the cheques for FSL examination and the said application having been allowed and the sample signature of the accused to be taken in the Court and also the admitted signature documents i.e, marriage registration certificate, sale agreement and the specimen signature taken in Court was sent to FSL examination and the FSL report has been received the report of the FSL is that the standard signature marked as A1 to 5, 7 to 18, A22 to 25, R1 to 5 did not write the question signature marked as the Ex-P2A and Ex-P3A and the signatures Ex.P.2A, Ex-P3A are produced by the means of imitation forgery. As per the FSL expert report, the signature on the disputed cheques on comparing with the admitted signature does not belong to the accused, they are forged and imitation forged signature. The expert who has given the report has been summoned to give evidence on the report and the said report given by the FSL expert is marked as Ex.C1 and the said witness is examined as CW1, wherein he has stated that he compared the admitted and disputed signature and analyzed the same and as given the opinion that there are negative authorship and they are imitation forgery. The CW1 has been cross-examined by the complainant counsel. The CW1 has admitted that he has not used stereoscopic microscope and also further he has 29 Crl.A.No.119/2025 not found characteristics of disguise in disputed signatures but he has not mentioned it in his report. The CW1 has denied the spur found in letter ''t' in Ex.P.3A and is also found in Ex.P.2A and further denied similar spur are found in admitted signature at A7, 10, 11, 17, 18, 33, 35 and R3. The CW1 has further admitted that he has not taken into consideration two admitted signatures for analysis which are A6 and A19 and he has stated that though they are admitted signatures sent for examination, he found a natural stroke in them and therefore he has not considered them for the test. Further he has stated that the hook found in letter 'r' are not found in all the signatures and has further admitted that he has not mentioned similarities in the admitted signatures and the disputed signatures as there are no similarity at all. The CW1 has admitted that when the time passes, there are chances of changes in signature of person and has stated that there is gap of 1 year to 1½ years in admitted and disputed signatures. The CW1 has also further admitted that for imitation forgery, there is need for model signature.
28. The accused has contended that her husband DW2 had given the blank and unsigned cheques to the complainant and the accused has disputed the signature on cheque since from the beginning of the case that the complainant has forged the signature of the accused. The accused has also relied on the notice issued by the accused i.e. Ex.P.9 and the accused from the inception has denied the signature on the cheques and has disputed that the complainant has forged the signature on the cheques and also to establish the fact the accused has examined the independent witness and authorities to assert that the signature of the accused does not match with the bank records and the experts have given the opinion that the accused signature has 30 Crl.A.No.119/2025 been forged and it is imitation forgery. The accused has also further contended that the accused and her husband had lodged the complaint before the Wilson Garden Police Station against the complainant and his staff in Cr.No.34/2019, which has been produced by the complainant at Ex.P.14 and 15 and during the course of investigation, the Police had summoned the bank manager to confirm the authenticity of the signature of cheque and the bank manager has issued the letter stating that the signature of the accused on the cheque was found to be mismatching as per their records which is also marked as Ex.D.7.
29. The trial Court with respect to the expert opinion which was marked as Ex.C.1, the trial Court has held that the accused had filed the application with respect to disputed signature to FSL examination u/s.45 of Evidence Act and the said application having been allowed. The admitted signatures and the documents with specimen signature drawn in the Court were sent for FSL examination and as per FSL report, the person who wrote the standard signature marked at A1 to 5, A7 to 18, A22 to 25 did not write the questioned signature marked at Ex.P.2(a) and Ex.P.3(a) and the signatures are produced by means of imitation forgery. The FSL expert has given the opinion that signatures found on the disputed cheques on comparing with admitted signatures does not belong to the accused and they are forged signatures.
30. The defence of the accused is that the said cheque, which has been in possession of the complainant was given by DW2 for the purpose of auditing. The accused has issued the reply notice stating that the accused is not having any transaction with the accused and she has not issued any cheques to the complainant and also the 31 Crl.A.No.119/2025 accused has taken the defence that she has never issued any cheques to the complainant and all transactions with the complainant was through online and the said cheques which are in possession of the complainant was given by D.W.2 to the complainant stating that the said cheques were required for auditing purpose. The cheques handed over by D.W.2 were blank unsigned and unfilled cheques, which are forged and fabricated and presented for encashment by the complainant with ulterior motive. The accused has also taken the defense that she has filed the complaint against the complainant and his staff before the Wilson garden Police with respect to the forgery and fabrication. The accused has also taken the contention that on 29 th October 2018, a Police complaint has been filed before the Wilson Garden Police. The accused having taken the said contention has not produced the said complaint before this Court.
31. In the present case, the case of the complainant is that the said cheque issued by the accused in discharge of legally enforceable debt has been dishonoured for the reason payment stopped by the drawer. With respect to the same, the complainant has also issued the notice dated 07.11.2018 stating that the said cheques has been dishonored through bank memo dated 30-10-2018 with an endorsement payment stopped by drawer. The said notice has been issued by the complainant dated 07-11-2018 which is marked as Ex.P.5. On perusal of the records in the present case, the case of the complainant is that the accused had issued the cheques for legally enforceable debt and the same came to be dishonored and the complainant has issued the legal notice calling upon the accused to make payment due under the said cheques. The complainant has contended that the reason for dishonor of the cheques is payment stopped by drawer. Whereas, with 32 Crl.A.No.119/2025 respect to the same, the complainant has issued Ex.P.5- Notice. The accused having issued the reply to the said notice as per Ex.P.9 has taken the contention that the accused has not issued any cheques to the complainant and never had any transaction with the complainant through cheques and all the payments are made through online with respect to the transactions between the complainant and accused. The accused has also taken the contention in the reply notice that the complainant requested to give sample cheques for auditing purpose, whereas in the said notice, the accused has taken the contention that there is no debt or any legal liability to be discharged, whereas the complainant has forged and fabricated the cheques for the purpose of cheating the accused. The accused has also taken the contention that the complainant has made illegal effort to fabricate the cheques drawn on Yes bank which has been returned as signature does not tally. Whereas, the accused has taken the contention and sent the reply notice that the said cheques has been dishonored for the reason signature does not tally, whereas, in the present case, the cheques presented by the complainant has been dishonored for the reason payment stopped by drawer. With respect to the said contention, the accused has not produced any document before the trial Court to show that why she has issued the 'stop payment' with respect to the said cheques. whereas the cheques having been dishonored for the reason payment stopped by the drawer, the burden is cast on the accused to prove that there was sufficient balance in the account to honour the cheques and for the reasons mentioned in stop payment instructions same has not been honoured, the accused has instructed the bank to stop the payment of the cheques. Whereas, in the present case, the accused has not produced any documents to substantiate that why she has issued the stop payment instruction with respect to 33 Crl.A.No.119/2025 the cheques which were presented by the complainant though the cheques has been dishonored for the reason payment stopped by drawer. The contention of the accused is that the said cheques has been dishonoured for the reason signature does not tally. With respect to the said contention, there is no document before this Court to presume that the signature does not tally and for the said reason the cheque has been dishonoured. Whereas, the Exs.P.2 and P.3 are the disputed cheques and Ex.P.4 is the dishonored memo with respect to two cheques. Whereas, the same has been dishonored for the reason payment stopped by the drawer. Both the cheques have been dishonoured for the reason payment stopped by drawer. The said cheques having been dishonoured for the said reason, the burden is cast on the accused to prove that the cheques was not issued for legally enforceable debt or for what reason the stop payment instruction was issued. The accused- DW1 has admitted in the cross- examination that the said stop payment instruction has been given to the bank by her husband D.W.2. Whereas, she has also taken the contention that the said cheque signatures does not belong to her and also she has further led the evidence stating that her husband has not taken the signature on the cheques to issue to the complainant. With respect to the same, the complainant has cross-examined the DW1 as to for what reason the stop payment instruction was issued, for that, the DW1 has answered that her husband has given the stop payment instruction and for what reason, she does not know and further she has admitted that she has signed the letter for giving stop payment and the said letter has been handed over to the bank by her husband and also she has further admitted that the stop payment letter has been drafted by her husband. The DW1 has admitted in the cross- examination that she does not know about the transaction with the 34 Crl.A.No.119/2025 complainant. The accused DW1 having admitted in the cross- examination that she does not know why the stop payment instruction was issued to the bank substantiates that she was not aware of the transaction and also further admitted that her husband has drafted the stop payment letter. With respect to the same, the bank manager has been examined and he has stated that the stop payment instruction was issued through online. If the stop payment instruction was issued through online, the question of the bank manager comparing the signatures of the cheques does not arise. Whereas, as per the instructions, the payment was stopped by the drawer, as such, the question of the bank manager verifying the signatures on the cheques and issuing the endorsement that the signature are not tallying does not arise as in the present case, the cheques has been dishonored for the reason payment stopped by the drawer, the question of examining the expert witness with respect to the forgery of the signature and other aspect that the complainant has forged and fabricated the signature of the accused does not arise, and hence, the burden is passed on the accused to substantiate that as to for what reason the stop payment was issued to the banker.
32. In the present case, the contention of the accused is that the said disputed cheques at Ex.P.2 and P.3 were handed over to the complainant by D.W.2 for the purpose of audit and the contention of the accused is that the said cheques were blank unsigned and the same were handed over for the purpose of auditing. If the said cheques were blank unsigned and unfilled handed over by the accused to the complainant, the question of accused and DW2 issuing the stop payment instructions to the bank does not arise. If at all the accused and DW2 had the apprehension that the complainant would 35 Crl.A.No.119/2025 forge and fabricate and present the cheques, the accused and DW2 would have take an action against the complainant by lodging the complaint before the Jurisdictional Police with respect to forging and presenting the said cheques at the earliest. The accused being aware of the fact that the signed cheques were handed over to the complainant, has intentionally issued the stop payment instructions to the bank. The accused has failed to prove that there was sufficient balance in the account to honour the cheque and as to for what purpose the stop payment was instructed to the bank. The accused and DW2 has failed to substantiate the fact as to why the stop payment instruction was issued to the bank. The contention of the accused is that they have filed the complaint against the complainant and their staff with respect to forgery of signature and fabrication of the documents before the Wilson Garden Police station in Cr.No.34/2019. The Police during the investigation in the said case had issued the notice to bank manager and had asked for the clarification with respect to the signatures on the cheques have been forged, with respect to the same the bank manager has issued the letter to the Police as per Ex.D7 stating the signature on the disputed cheques does not tally with the signature of the accused and there is mismatch of the signature. The accused has relied on the Ex-D7 document alleging that the complainant has forged the documents and has obtained other documents by force and threat. The said complaint lodged by the DW2 before the Wilson garden PS in Cr.No.39/2019 was challenged by the complainant before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl.P.No.1086/2021, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has quashed the entire proceedings in Cr.No.39/2019. The accused had challenged the same before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka Karnataka was 36 Crl.A.No.119/2025 confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India having quashed the proceedings with respect to Cr.No.39/2019 of Wilson garden PS, the contention of the accused with respect to the allegation pf forgery and fabrication of disputes cheques got extinguished. The accused having filed the application for referring the disputed signature on the cheques is on the basis of the Ex-D7 issued by the bank manager. The entire proceedings in Cr.No.39/2019 having been quashed the accused has lost the right to allege the cheque has been forged for the reason that the disputed cheques have not been dishonoured for the reason signature mismatch, whereas the disputed cheques have been dishonoured for the reason payment stopped by drawer.
33. The trial Court has not considered the evidence of CW1 with respect to forging and fabrication. Whereas, the opinion of the CW1 expert is that there is imitation forgery. The contention of complainant is that all the transactions between the accused and complainant as stated by the accused was online and there was no opportunity for the complainant to force the cheques as the signature of the accused was not with the with the complainant to forge the signature as per the opinion of the expert that the signatures on Ex.P.2 and P3 are imitation forgery. The appellant in the appeal and in the written arguments has taken the contention that on 27.03.2025, he has filed a the memo along with the copy of Whats app document sent to the complainant, wherein DW2- husband had sent photograph of RTGS form containing the signature of the accused to the complainant. The accused/ appellant has taken the said stand in the appeal to substantiate that the said document was with him at the stage of trial and if the said the document was with the accused, he could have confronted the same 37 Crl.A.No.119/2025 with the complainant and could have marked the said document. The appellant has also taken the contention that the accused was aware of the said fact during the final arguments before the trial Court that the complainant did not have a model signature to even forge the signature of the accused and has taken the contention that the complainant had never taken the said stand before the trial Court and it was taken only during the arguments and the accused never had an opportunity to rebut the said contention of the complainant. The said contention of the appellant cannot be accepted as the CW1 was cross- examined by the complainant counsel. During the cross examination of CW1 on 07.12.2024, the CW1 has admitted in the cross examination that for imitation forgery model signature is necessary. The said fact having been admitted by C.W.1 in the cross-examination, the contention of the appellant that the complainant has taken the said stand in the argument does not hold water as the accused had an opportunity to rebut the said contention before the trial Court by leading further evidence of the accused or the witness. The said document produced at the time of the appeal cannot be considered as the same is not marked nor confronted to the witness nor the said document has gone through the test of cross examination.
34. The accused with respect to the forgery of the cheques has also taken the contention that as per Ex.D.23, there is Whatsapp chat, wherein it was clearly informed to the husband of the accused - D.W.2 that the cheques was only for reference and for not banking purpose and also the accused has contended that the trial Court has not whispered with respect to Ex.P.23 and also the accused has taken the contention that the trial Court has failed to draw the inference against the complainant on the fact that the said cheques were handed over 38 Crl.A.No.119/2025 by DW2 was only for auditing purpose and as per Ex.D.23, the staff of complainant on his instruction requested for cheques to maintain good relationship with the complainant, as such, the DW2 agreed to hand over signed blank cheques and the said cheques for only reference. On perusal of the Ex.D.23, it is the Whatsapp chat between the DW2 and the employee of complainant. The said Whatsapp chat produced by the accused as per Ex.D.23 are the Chats dated 28.08.2018 wherein the said chat, it has been requested to send photo of three cheques leaves of Yes bank and change the cheques and it is not for depositing. Wherein the said chat, the photo of the cheques has been only requested and the further chat with respect to the same has been not produced by the accused as to whether he has handed over the said cheques or not on 28-08-2018 with respect to sending the said photocopies of three cheque. The cheques have also not been produced along with the Whatsapp chat to substantiate that as per Ex.D.23, the accused- DW2 has sent the present Ex.P.2 and P.3- cheques and the cheque in another case. The contention of the accused that the said cheques were handed over to the complainant for auditing purpose is not proved by producing Ex.D.23, wherein the said chat does not substantiate that the cheques were handed over by the accused to the complainant on 28-08-2018.
35. On perusal of the other Whatsapp chat which are marked by the accused by confronting the P.W.1 is Ex.P.15, wherein the said Whatsapp chat dated 27.10.2018, there is a chat mentioning that please ensure to send outstanding payment as per the confirmation made in my office for 2.9 crores which is overdue by today noon and subsequently, another chat has been forwarded, wherein it has been mentioned that kindly note you have not responded to my calls, hence 39 Crl.A.No.119/2025 I am forced to deposit the cheques to the bank and also there is further chats, wherein it is been mentioned that if you don't respond, we feel you don't have the right intention to pay the outstanding. The said messages which have been marked as Ex.D.15 substantiates that the accused was due for a sum of Rs.2.9 crores and also the other message, wherein it has been mentioned that I am forced to deposit the cheques to the bank, which substantiates that the DW2 had issued the cheques to the complainant. The said Whatsapp chat dated 27.10.2018 produced at Ex.D.15 substantiates that the cheques were duly signed and were handed over to the complainant.
36. The contention of the accused that the trial Court has not considered the Ex.D.23 that the said cheques were handed over by DW2 to the complainant only for reference and not for banking purpose is negated by the Whatsapp chat dated 27-10-2018 produced at Ex.D.15, which has been confronted and marked by the accused while cross-examining the PW-1. The said Whatsapp chat dated 27.10.2018 substantiates that there was due by the accused to the complainant and also with respect to the same, the said cheques were signed and handed over to the complainant. If the said cheques were not signed and handed over by the accused, the complainant or his staff could not have messaged to the DW2 that they are forced to deposit the said cheque to the bank. The said message substantiates that the accused and DW2 had handed over the signed cheques to the complainant, as such, the contention of the appellant that the said cheques have been forged and fabricated by the complainant does not survive for consideration and the trial Court has rightly considered the evidence of CW1 with respect to the facts and circumstances of the case. The evidence of CW1 is irrelevant to the facts and 40 Crl.A.No.119/2025 circumstances of the case as the accused having issued the stop payment instructions has not proved as to why she has issued the stop payment nor she has led the evidence with respect to the same. The accused without looking to the reason for dishonor of cheques has come to the conclusion that the cheques and signatures have been forged and fabricated. The accused as such has failed to substantiate her defence with respect to dishonour of the cheques.
37. The contention of the appellant/ accused with respect to the 11 invoices is that the appellant has contended that the case of complaint is that the accused has not made any payment towards the disputed invoice and accordingly the accused has issued cheques towards the said amount. The accused and DW2 have contended that they have made payment towards 11 invoices and with respect to the same, the accused has produced the bank statements for having made payment to the complainant. The accused has also taken the contention that with respect to the 11 invoices, she has made payment towards the same i.e., an amount of Rs.4.79 lakh and also the accused has taken the contention that Ex.D.29 and Ex.D42 are the invoices of the Apple distributors containing the UDID numbers and these invoices are raised when the complainant received the product from the distributors and the said products were collected by the accused at the instance of complainant and further sold it to his customers and with respect to the same, he has produced Ex.D.28 document the accused has also taken the contention that the invoices raised by the complainant are for the same UDID numbers but under different dates which are marked as Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.17 and the same are not matching with invoice dates of Ex.D.29, Ex.D42 and Ex.D.28. The accused has also taken the contention that he has established before the trial Court that the 41 Crl.A.No.119/2025 payments have been made with respect to the 11 invoices, but the trial Court has failed to apply its judicial mind and has not even considered the defense of accused. The accused has also taken the contention that the complainant has failed to establish the older due against which older invoice and UDID numbers this Rs.4.79 crore payment was adjusted. The accused has also taken the contention that he has produced Ex.D.25 and 26 to substantiate his defense that accused has transferred money to the complainant under 11 invoices. The accused has also taken the contention that complainant has failed to establish the transaction was towards 11 invoices. The accused has also further contended that the complainant has not disputed the Ex.D.25 and 26 produced by the accused, i.e., the bank statements which show that the accused has made payment for the 11 invoices. The accused has also taken the contention that during the investigation by the Halsuru Police, they have produced certain documents i.e., invoice details of complainant and invoices of accused, the distributors invoice and invoice of the customers of the accused along with their statement and ledger extract for having transacted with the accused and the said documents are already marked as Ex.D.13. As such, the accused having sold the said products and having received amount from the customers have made payment towards 11 invoices. The accused has further contended that the trial Court ought to have drawn adverse inference against the complainant for non-production of the invoices with UDID numbers against which Rs.4.79 crore was adjusted .
38. The accused has also further contended that the invoices of the accused to his customer perfectly match with 11 invoices of the complainant which are marked as Exs.P.1 and P.17, as such, it establishes that the products in invoice No. Ex.P.1 and P17 are the 42 Crl.A.No.119/2025 same as that of products in invoice at Ex.D.28. As such, the payment made as per Ex.D.-25 and 26 are towards the 11 invoices. The accused has also further contended that the complainant having cross- examined DW1 and DW2, in both the cases, have not disputed the Ex.D.25 and D26, the payments made by the accused towards the said 11 invoices, The accused has also further contended that the PW1 having been cross-examined has contended that the PW1 during the cross- examination has stated that the accused has received the laptop from distributors godown pertaining to 11 invoices without his knowledge in collusion with Kavitha and Vasudha. The accused has contended that the DW2 had collected only twice from the Distributors' and in relation to the said 11 invoices and the rest of the laptops with respect to 11 invoices were collected directly from the godown of Creative infotech.
39. The trial Court with respect to the contention of the accused that 11 invoices mentioned in the complaint are fake and UDID numbers of the products are repeated in certain invoices. With respect to the same, the trial Court has held that the accused though has contended that the said invoices are fake and he has also contended that he has made payment to the complainant with respect to these said invoices and there are no dues. The accused alleging that she has made the payment under 11 invoices has also produced Ex.D.48 to show that she has made payment on the dates and also the trial Court has held that the accused is trying to say two things at the same time either the 11 invoices are fake so she is not liable to pay the amount mentioned in the fake invoice to the complainant or the invoices are genuine and she has made all payments to the 11 invoices, as such there is no due, as such the trial Court having held that the accused is trying to 43 Crl.A.No.119/2025 appropriate and reprobate at the same time and the trial Court has considered that the defense of the accused is not correct.
40. On perusal of the records, it is noticed that the case of the complainant is that the accused was due for the payment of 11 invoices, wherein the accused had purchased the materials, desktop and laptops on credit basis from 07.09.2018 to 16.10.2018 and the accused is due for a sum of Rs.5,25,75,797/- and the said amount is due is under 11 invoices, as such the accused on repeated demands for payment has issued cheque for Rs.2,85,56,920 dated 26-10-2018 and another cheque for Rs 2,09,24,812/- dated 29-10-2018. Said cheques having been presented for encashment, the same were dishonoured for the reason payment stopped by drawer. As such, the present complaint has been filed and the complainant having got examined himself as PW1 as got marked Ex.P.1 to P42 documents in support of his case and also the accused led the evidence as DW1 and the evidence of witnesses DW2 and got marked Ex.D.1 to D 53 documents. The accused on filing of application has also got examined CW1, the FSL expert and also got marked Ex.C.1, the FSL report with respect to the defense of the accused. The accused has contended he had cross examined the PW1 with respect to his defense that the accused has made payment with respect to 11 invoices for sum of Rs. 4,79,00,000/-. The accused has also contended with respect to the payment made by the accused has also produced Exs.D.25 and D.26- the bank statement, which shows that the accused has made the payment and the accused has also further contended that the documents collected during the course of investigation by the Halasur Police are produced and the said documents are marked as a Ex.D13 and has further contended that as per the 11 invoices are sold to the 44 Crl.A.No.119/2025 appropriate customers and the amount towards supply has been reflecting in the bank statements and the UDID numbers mentioned in the distributors invoice in Ex.D.29 and Ex.D.42 compared with invoices of the accused at Ex.D.23, the invoices that of the customers of the accused reveal that the same products which were received by the complainant by his distributors in 11 invoices were sold to the customers. The accused has also contended that the materials sold under 11 invoices of the complainant which are marked as Exs.P.1 and P.17 establish that the products in the said invoices are the same that of the products mentioned in invoices at Ex.D.28, as such the payment made by the accused as per Ex.D.25 and Ex.D.26 are towards the 11 invoices.
41. On perusal of the records, it is noticed that the Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.17 are the invoices produced by the complainant in support of his case. Ex.P.1 are the 11 invoices produced by the complainant. Whereas, Ex.P.17 are the same invoices with UDID number and bill produced by the complainant. On perusal of Ex.P.1 and P17, the same are with respect to the 11 invoices which the complainant has claimed that the accused has not made payment towards the said 11 invoices and in discharge of the same, the accused has issued two disputed cheques- Ex.P.2 and P3, the accused has taken the contention that the Exhibit-P17 are the invoices and also the 11 invoices out of in which clearly establishes that the products in the said invoices Ex.P.1 and P17 are the same products in invoices which are produced by the accused at Ex.D.28. The accused has also taken the contention that the UDID numbers mentioned in distributors invoices in Exs.D.29 and D.42 when compared to the invoices of the accused in Ex.D.28 invoices that the customers of the accused reveals that they are the 45 Crl.A.No.119/2025 same products which were received by complainant by his distributors in 11 invoices and were sold to the customers by the accused. The accused having taken the contention has denied that there was no running account maintained by the complainant. With respect to the sales made by the complainant to the accused, the complainant has produced Ex.P.19 which is the sales ledger extract of the accused from 01.04.02018 to 31.03.2019. The said ledger extract shows that the account of the accused is running account and as per the running account extract, the balance payable by the accused is Rs.4,95,05,332/- as per the closing balance. The accused has disputed the said fact that there was no running account maintained by the complainant with respect to the accused. The accused has taken the contention that with respect to the 11 invoices he has already made payment a sum of Rs.4.79 crore, with respect to the said payment, he has produced Exs.D.25 and D.26- account statements which show that the accused has made payment to the complainant The payments made by the accused with respect to Ex.D.25 and Ex.D26, the same has been reflected in the ledger account extract produced by the complainant as per Ex.P.19. The payments shown by the accused in Ex.D.25 and D26 have relevant entry in Ex.P.19 and the outstanding balance as per Ex.P.19 is Rs.4,95,05,332/-, with respect to the same, the accused has cross examined the PW-1 with respect to the maintaining of running account by cross-examination dated 19-12-2022, wherein the accused has admitted that there was running account and the accused was making online payment and also has further suggested the PW1 that the payment made was adjusted to the bill by the accountant. With respect to the adjustment made as per the ledger, the complainant has denied that his accountant was maintaining the account and she was adjusting the 46 Crl.A.No.119/2025 bills. The accused having suggested the PW1 that he was maintaining the running account and the same is established that the complainant was maintaining the running account of the accused as per Ex.P.19 produced by the complainant. The defense of the accused is that he has made payment as per Ex.D.25 and Ex.D26 with respect to 11 invoices. The accused has taken the contention that the 11 invoices payment has been made and also has taken the contention that that the complainant has misused the disputed cheques which was given for auditing purpose.
42. On perusal of Ex.P.19-the ledger account extract of the accused maintained by the complainant and Ex.P43- the purchase extract of the accused from the year 01-04-2017 to 31-03-2018, it is noticed that the said business between the complainant and accused was on credit basis and the said Ex.P.19 and D43 show that there was a running account between the complainant and accused. The payments were made by the accused was after purchase on the credit basis, the accused having contended that there was no running account cannot be believed as per Ex.D.43 produced by the accused shows that there is no payment made with respect to each invoice The accused has made payment collectively and the same has been shown in the said Ex.D.43 and so also the Ex.P.19 produced by the complainant, the said Ex.P.19 and Ex.D.43 are the ledger account extract of the complainant and the accused for having purchased the articles with respect to the 11 invoices i.e, invoice No. 358, 363, 362, 364, 370, 373, 376, 383, 393, 395, 397. With respect to 11 invoices, there is entry in Ex.D.43, which shows that the accused has purchased the items as per invoice invoices the disputed 11 invoices the invoice No.358 which is dated 07-09-2018 and the last invoice No.397 is dated 47 Crl.A.No.119/2025 16.10.2018. The contention of the accused is that with respect to the 11 invoices all the e-way bills are generated on 25-10-2018. With respect to the said contention, if the said items were not purchased by the accused under the said 11 invoices, same would have not been mentioned in Ex.D.43, the ledger account extract of the accused for having purchased the items. The said 11 invoices which the complainant is claiming, the said 11 invoices are mentioned in the said purchase ledger extract of the accused and the amount and invoices mentioned in the complaint and in the said Ex.D.43 are one and the same and so also, the said invoices are also mentioned in Ex.P.19- Sales ledger account of accused maintained by the complainant. The said Ex.P.19 and P43 clearly establishes that the accused has purchased the items under 11 invoices and the with respect to the amount due as mentioned in Ex.P.19 is Rs.4,95,05,332/-, whereas, the amount due in Ex.D.43 is not Rs.4,95,05,332/-. The accused having taken the contention that he has made payment with respect to 11 in- voices has not been substantiated by the document produced at Ex.D.43 and also the Ex.D25 and Ex.D26, the bank statement. The complainant to substantiate that the accused is due of the cheque amount has produced Ex.P.18- IT returns, wherein the amount mentioned in the cheque is shown as due from the accused, as such, the complainant has proved that the accused has issued the disputed cheques for legally enforceable debt.
43. The accused having cross-examined the PW1 by confronting the documents the accused got marked Ex.D.2 and D3 documents. The said documents are marked through confronting the PW1. The Ex.D.2- Tax invoices from 03.04.2018 to 16-10-2018 with respect to the accused. The said exhibit is marked as Ex.D.2. Whereas, the Ex.D.3 is the document which the complainant has produced before the Police with respect to the serial numbers while details sold to the Matru Technologies. On perusal of 48 Crl.A.No.119/2025 the said Ex.D.3, it is noticed that the UDID numbers have been mentioned with respect to the items sold to Mathru Technologies. Whereas, the accused has taken the contention that the complainant has not produced the documents pertaining to UDID numbers and the complainant has billed the accused twice for the same transaction with respect to the same, the accused having mark the said Ex.D.2 and D3 confronting the PW1. The accused has taken the contention that the invoice No.188 and invoice No.286 are the invoices, wherein the accused had already received the products through invoice No.80, 88, 94 are the same products which are received in invoice No.100 and so also the invoice No.188, wherein the said products mentioned in invoice No.188 are the same products which are being mentioned in invoice No.120, 140, 141, 148, 160 and 187 and the accused has also further contended that with respect to invoice No.296 dated 24-07-2018 the products which has been received under the said invoice are the products which are already mentioned in invoice No.207, 208, 194, 267 and 319. The accused has taken the contention that the complainant has manipulated the invoices and repeated the UDID num- bers and billed the accused twice for the same transaction. The accused having taken the said contention that the complainant has manipulated the invoices and has repeated the UDID numbers and billed the accused twice for the said transaction and having taken the contention that the invoices at 188 and 296 are fake and repeated invoice. The accused having taken the said contention has not produced any document before the Court to show that the invoice No.100, 188 and 296 are fake and repeated invoice. The accused having taken the contention that the invoice No.80, 88, 94, 120, 140, 141, 148, 160, 187, 207, 208, 194, 267 and 319 are repeated invoice No.100, 188 and 296. The accused having taken the said contention has not produced any document to substantiate that the complainant has billed twice the accused for the same invoices. If at all the 49 Crl.A.No.119/2025 said invoices are repeated and fake, the accused would have not made payment twice for the same product and the accused would have questioned the complainant for having billed twice for the same transaction, though the accused has disputed the said invoices No. 80, 88, 94, 140, 141, 148, 160, 187, 207, 208, 194, 267 and 319 alleging that the same have been repeated in fake invoice No.100, 188 and 296. The accused having disputed the said invoices has got marked the said invoices as per Ex.D.2 by confronting the same to the PW1. The accused has also taken the contention that complainant has not produced the UDID numbers as the application u/s.91 of Cr.P.C. was allowed partly by the trial Court.
44. The DW2 has been cross-examined by the complainant with respect to invoice No.100, 180, 296. The complainant has suggested the DW2 that the materials under invoice No.100, 188 and 296 has been sold to the Viva infotech solution without bill and also the complainant has further cross-examined the DW2 with respect to his office at Wilson Garden 12th Cross, 8th Main No.18/2 and also the DW2 has further admitted that the said office was taken on lease from Bhagyalakshmi and the lease agreement has been marked by confronting the same as Ex.P.40 and the DW2 has further admitted that Viva infotech solution is also in the second floor of the same building and the same has also been leased by Bhagyalakshmi and also the DW2 has further admitted that he has signed as witness to the said lease agreement of Viva infotech solutions and the said document is marked as Ex.P.41. DW1 has also admitted that as per the document, Vivo Solutions had made a total transaction of Rs.7,59,00,000/- from 19.11.2017 to 13.10.2018. The DW2 having been further cross-examined by the complainant counsel, the DW2 has admitted that the Police have filed a charge sheet against his 50 Crl.A.No.119/2025 wife DW2, Vasudha Kavita and Rajat and Suddath in C.C.No.26/2020 and also has further admitted that the Police have filed the charge sheet against DW2 along with his wife and staff of complainant for having colluded and without paying the money and raising the bill for this Rs.4.95 crore they have taken away the said worth products from the complainant company. The DW2 has denied the suggestion with respect to the balance amount of Rs.4.95 crore, he has issued two cheques and also issued a cheque for Rs.1.40 crore with respect to delay payment. The DW1 having been cross-examined with respect to the amount of Rs.4.95 crore, the DW1 has denied that their company had purchased Apple products worth Rs.4.95 crore and for the repayment of the same two cheques were issued to the complainant and the said cheques have been signed by DW1 and the DW1 has further denied the suggestion that after issuing the cheque when there was no balance in the account she has issued stop payment. The DW1 has also denied the suggestion that to escape from the liability of the company, she is stating that she does not know about the transaction and her husband was looking after the said transactions. DW1 has admitted that the complaint lodged by the complainant before the Police and the Police after investigation have filed the charge sheet and the said cases are pending and also further admitted that she and her husband are the accused in the said case. The DW1 was confronted with the balance sheet of their company and the DW1 has admitted that as on 31.05.2018, the balance amount of Creative infotech was Rs.4,89,37,049/- and also has further admitted that on 31 st May 2018, as per the balance sheet, the amount due towards Creative infotech was Rs.3,34,91,480/-. DW1 has also admitted that of signature on the said balance sheet and the said balance sheets have been marked as Exs.P.33 and 34. The accused applicant having contended that the 51 Crl.A.No.119/2025 UDID numbers in certain invoices and the double GST declaration has been made for the same product in respect to invoice No.100, 188 and
296. The said invoice No.100, 188, 296 are not involved in the present case. Whereas, the case of the complainant is with respect to 11 invoices as mentioned in the complaint with respect to the said invoices, the DW2 has admitted that the Police having filed charge sheet in Cr.No.26/2020 and the same is pending for consideration. The complainant having been cross-examined by the accused has admitted about the repetition of UDID numbers and the complainant has further clarified stating that he would never sell the products by mentioning UDID numbers but only sells the products by mentioning the part numbers. The PW1 has further stated that he came to know that the accused in collision with the staff of complainant took products without invoices and the bills were raised on the same day and on the next day invoice bill was made. The PW1 has not denied that the invoice bills have been raised on the same day for the products taken by the accused. The complainant with respect to the said difference has cross examined the DW2, wherein the DW2 has denied the sug- gestion that the products mentioned in invoice No.100, 188, 296 amount of Rs.3.50 crore have been sold to Viva Technologies without billing. The DW2 has admitted that the amount total amount for invoice No.100, 188 and 296 is Rs.3.50 crore and for the said amount GST was of Rs.60 lakhs at the rate of 18%. DW2 has denied that the said invoice input credit was given to the accused company, for that the DW2 has stated that the input was given but he has not accepted the same and further denied the suggestion that they have sold the products in invoice No.100, 188 and 296 without billing for this reason as such they have not accepted the GST input.
52 Crl.A.No.119/202545. The accused has taken the contention that the complainant has received a caution notice on 22-12-2017 from the Apple India Private Limited warning the complainant that he has submitted his CRT claims with the signature of the Registrar who had already resigned from his post way before the laptops were delivered to him. The accused has also alleged that the complainant could purchase laptops from Apple India Pvt. Ltd and sells the same for business/ commercial purpose. As per the policy of Apple India Private Limited, the distributors such as complainant can claim discount CRT claim from the Apple India Private Limited if the company complainant is selling the laptops to educational institute institutions provided that the complainant uploads the invoice race to the educational institution. The complainant with an intention to cheat Apple India Private Limited has created fake invoices with false signatures of Registrars/Principals of educational institution in order to claim discount from the Apple India Private Limited. The opponent has contended that when the counsel for the accused confronted the complainant with caution notice, the complainant has put the blame on late Ms. Kavita and stated that the false CRT claim was done by late Ms. Kavita in conclusion with accused, as such the said false CRT claimed by the complainant, the complainant would only be benefited from the said claim. As such the complainant has diverted his question and played fraud on this Court. The appellant has also contended that the complainant has not produced any documents stated in the application and has not complied with the order of the trial Court and the trial Court has not taken into consideration and erred in convicting the accused. The applicant has also contended that the Apple India Private Limited has terminated the contract with complainant in 2020 much after the employee of the complainant resigned from his office. It clearly indicates that the complainant 53 Crl.A.No.119/2025 continued to forge and claim fake CRT claims even after he filed cheque bounce case against the accused. The accused has taken the contention that the complainant has submitted the CRT claims and used to get benefit on the sale of products by the Apple company and the accused has confronted the image which has been produced at Ex.D12 by the accused. The CRT claim is between the complainant and the Apple Company and the accused has nothing say in it. The conditional rebate tool given by the Apple company is the discount on the product sold to the educational institution. The contention of the accused is that the complainant has made false CIT claim before the Apple company. On the perusal of the Ex.D.12, it is noticed that the Apple company has not given the CRT stating that the complainant has sold the products as per the invoices and were activated by business customers and not the educational institution and the products were sold to faculties and students for their personal use. As such, the Apple Company has rejected the complaint claim of CRT. The PW1 having been cross-examined with respect to the same, PW1 has stated that his staff Kavitha and Vasudha have submitted CRT claims and later, found that they have made false claim with respect to the said CRT claim that the complainant has not submitted the documents as per the direction of the Court does not survive for consideration as the conditional rebate tool given by the Apple company is for selling the product to the educational institute. The Ex.D.12 which has been marked by the accused confronting the PW1, the CRT claim was rejected by the Apple company as the products were sold to faculties and students for their personal use and the same was not sold for educational institution, holding the same, the claim of the complainant was rejected by the Apple company and was warned with the termination of the agreement if the same is continued. The 54 Crl.A.No.119/2025 said dispute between the Apple company and the complainant is with respect to their terms of agreement. As such, the accused has nothing to say with respect to the same. If the complainant had made any false CRT claim, it is between the complainant and the Apple company to resolve the dispute.
46. The accused has taken the contention that DW2 has sought for clarification from the complainant and has sent an email dated 15.11.2019 which is produced as Ex.D.50 with respect to certain invoices. The accused has contended that the complainant has not replied to the said e-mail, whereas the Ex.D.50 produced by the accused shows that the complainant has replied to the said email and also has further stated that the Ledger extract has been shared on 24 th October 2018. The accused with respect to the said email has not pro- duced the Ledger extract produced by the complainant dated 24.10.2018 to the accused. The accused has taken the contention that the accused has raised the probable defense that the accused has made payment with respect to 11 invoices and the cheque issued by the accused is not towards the alleged payment towards 11 invoices as stated in the legal notice. The accused has also contended that the complainant has not mentioned about the 11 invoices in the complaint dated 09-11-2018 filed before the Halasur Police Station. The accused has further contended that he has issued a detailed reply notice dated 31st November 2018 with respect to the notice issued by the complainant dated 07.11.2018. On perusal of the records, it is noticed that the complainant in support of his case has got examined himself as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P42 documents in support of this case. Whereas, the accused having led the evidence as DW1 and the evidence of witness as DW 2 and got marked documents Exs.D1 to 55 Crl.A.No.119/2025 Ex.D53 in support of the defense. The contention of the complainant is that the complainant used to supply the goods to the accused and was maintaining running the account as per the account ledger extract produced by the complainant at Ex.P.19. The complainant to prove the contention that the complainant has supplied the materials as per the invoices. The complainant has produced the original invoice at Ex.P.17 and the ledger extract signed by DW2. The contention of the accused is that he has made payment respect to 11 invoices as per Exs.P.25 and 26, the bank statements produced by the accused, the payment made by the accused with respect to bank statement produced, the complainant has not disputed the statements at Exs.P.25 and 26. The accused has contended that he has made advance payment and later fake invoices are placed by the complainant once again to claim the amount. The Ex.D.43- ledger extract of the accused shows regarding the 11 invoices which the complainant has claimed in the present case. The bank statements produced by the accused as per Exs.D.25 and D26, it do not show that the accused has made payment for the 11 invoices. The transaction between the complainant and the accused is of running account. In the normal course of business, any payment made by the accused could be adjusted to the outstanding amount and the accused having maintained the ledger had to update the same about the balance, credit and debit. The documents produced by the accused do not show up to date payment with respect to the products purchased by the accused. The contention of the accused that he has made payment to the complainant for the 11 invoices which cannot be believed as no acknowledgment for receipt of money in advance has been produced by the accused having paid advance for the products. The document that is produced by the accused does not probabilize the defense of the accused and the 56 Crl.A.No.119/2025 presumption is not rebutted by the accused. Wherein the accused having examined as DW1 has admitted in the cross that she is not aware of any transaction with the complainant and has further stated that her husband used to take care of the entire business. She being the proprietor of accused company, she is ignorant of the transaction and also has admitted that she does not know the reason as to why stop payment has been issued and has further admitted that the stop payment has been given by her husband. The accused/ DW1 being the proprietor and she having not authorized the DW2 to give the stop payment, has given the stop payment to the bank with respect to the said disputed cheques -Ex.P.2 and P3. The DW1 has not substantially rebutted the presumption satisfactorily. As the accused has failed to rebut the presumption u/s.139 of NI Act and has failed to make a probable defence. The complainant has filed another case against the accused in respect of interest on delayed payment of the invoice amount which is also the subject matter of Crl.A.No.120/2025.
47. The proposition of law is that it is always not necessary for the accused to step into witness-box and to depose before the Court to prove his contentions. It is trite proposition of law that accused can prove his contention by way of cross-examining the complainant witnesses. In this case, the accused has not disputed the issuance of cheque but has disputed the signature on the said cheque and with respect to the same the accused got referred the said Ex.P. 2 and P3 cheque to FSL and the FSL having examined has given the opinion that the signature on Ex.C1 is imitation forgery with respect to the said contention the CW1 FSL Officer has been cross examined by the complainant counsel and also the CW1 has admitted that for imitation forgery the model signature is necessary. The accused though has 57 Crl.A.No.119/2025 taken the contention that the signature on the cheque does not belongs to that of the accused. In the present case the reason for dishonor of cheque is payment stopped by drawer, as such the accused has not substantiated her defence as to why stop payment cheque was issued and the accused does not produced any document to substantiate the same nor has produced any document to show that there was sufficient amount in the bank to honor the cheque. The accused has failed to substantiate the defence that for what reason the stop payment was issued to the banker with respect to Ex.P2 and P3 cheques. When such being the case, it is incumbent upon the accused to give explanation under what circumstances the accused parted with the possession of Ex.P2 and P3. In her statement u/s.313 of Cr.P.C, the accused plainly denied the allegation. No explanation was offered by the accused with regard to possession of cheque belonging to accused in the hands of the complainant and also with respect to issuing of shop payment instructions to the bank. When such being the case, the burden is on the accused to disprove that cheque was not issued towards legally enforceable debt as such the stop payment was issued for not honouring the Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 cheques.
48. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision reported in (2009) 2 SCC 513 in the case of Kumar Exports v/s Sharma Carpets and another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2019 SC 1983 in the case of Basalingappa v/s Mudibasappa held that presumption u/s.118 and 139 of NI Act are rebuttable presumptions. It is further held that rebuttal does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt. Something probable has to be brought on record. In this case the accused has not elicited any admissions from the mouth of complainant nor rebut the presumptions available to the complainant 58 Crl.A.No.119/2025 as provided u/s.118 and 139 of NI Act. The bare denial of passing of consideration would not aid the case of the accused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly held that:
"A probable defence needs to be raised which must meet the standard of 'preponderance of probability', and not mere possibility".
49. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision reported in (2019) 4 SCC 197 in the case of Bir Singh -Vs- Mukesh Kumar, it is held that:
"Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused which is towards some payment, would attract presumption u/s.139 of NI Act, in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that cheque was not issued in discharge of debt.
50. Exs.P.2 and P.3- the cheque belongs to the account of accused. The accused though in her defence has produced the document and examined the witness has not substantiated her defence. Such being the case, the defence raised by the accused in the considered opinion of this Court not inspire confidence or meet the standard of 'preponderance of probability'. In the absence of any other relevant evidence to disprove or to rebut the presumption available to the complainant, the accused in the opinion of this Court has not discharged her onus in proving her contention. The view of this Court is fortified by the three bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2021 SCC ONLINE SC 75 (M/s. Kalamani Tex and another v/s B. Balasubramanian). In view of above observation, the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record, documents and the 59 Crl.A.No.119/2025 authorities and there is no error committed by the trial Court. As such, the appellant has not made out sufficient ground to set aside the impugned judgment passed by the the trial Court and it does not require for any interference by this Court. Accordingly, I answer point No.2 in the negative.
51. Point No.2: In view of my findings on point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The appeal filed by appellant/ accused u/s.374 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.
The impugned judgment and order of sentence passed by XI ASCJ and ACJM, Bengaluru,in C.C.No.60105/2018 dated 19.12.2024 is confirmed.
Send a copy of this judgment to the trial Court along with TCR forthwith.
(Dictated to the Sr. Sheristedar through electronic device and also to the Typist, transcript corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 16th day of April, 2025) (HEMANTH KUMAR C.R.) LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.