Karnataka High Court
Mallappa S/O Panchakashrappa Kabbur vs Synthetic Industries Ltd on 25 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9448
CRL.RP No. 100173 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No. 100173 OF 2020
(397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. MALLAPPA S/O PANCHAKASHRAPPA KABBUR
AGE: 58 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
PROPRIETOR ORGANIC SPICE TRAIDING CO.,
APMC MARKET, BYADGI,
R/O: BYADGI, TQ: BYADGI,
DIST: HAVERI-581115.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI P. P. HITTALAMANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. SYNTHETIC INDUSTRIES LTD.,
by VINUTHA B S
KUMARPATTANAM,
Location: HIGH REPRESENTED BY
COURT OF
KARNATAKA SRI.VINAYAK,
S/O GANAPATI HEGDE,
AGE: 34 YEARS,
OCC: JOB,
R/O: SYNTHETIC INDUSTRIES LTD.,
KUMARPATTANAM,
TQ: RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI,
PIN: 581115.
...RESPONDENT
(RESPONDENT IS SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9448
CRL.RP No. 100173 of 2020
HC-KAR
THE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION OF ACCUSED FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 138 OF NI ACT BY IT'S
CONVICTION ORDER DATED 06/02/2020 PASSED IN CRIMINAL
APPEAL No.105 OF 2018 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI (SITTING AT
RANEBENNUR). CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF CONVICTION
DTD:07/07/2018 PASSED IN CC No.325 OF 2016 ON THE FILE
OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS AT RANEBENNUR, BY DISMISSING
THE COMPLAINT AND ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL REVISION
PETITION.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND) Heard Sri P.P. Hittalamani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Sri Z.N. Hansi, learned counsel submits that he has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent.
2. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the accused, assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.07.2018 passed in C.C. No. 325/2016 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ranebennur, as well as the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 06.02.2020 -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:9448 CRL.RP No. 100173 of 2020 HC-KAR passed in Crl.A. No. 105/2018 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri, sitting at Ranebennur.
3. Brief facts;
The complainant and the accused are stated to have had business transactions. It is the case of the complainant that the accused requested supply of 50 tons of red chilly seeds. Accordingly, the complainant supplied 15,988 kgs. on 02.08.2013 and 15,978 kgs. on 09.08.2013. The accused paid a sum of ₹5,11,855/- towards the supply made on 02.08.2013. In discharge of the payment of ₹5,45,968/- for the supply made on 09.08.2013, the accused issued cheque bearing No. 049989 dated 13.08.2013, drawn on Axis Bank, Ranebennur Branch, for a sum of ₹5,45,464/-. Upon presentation, the said cheque was dishonoured on 17.08.2013 with the endorsement "insufficient funds." On assurance by the accused, the cheque was presented again and the same came to be dishonoured again on 03-10-2013 for want of funds. The complainant thereafter issued a legal notice demanding payment of the cheque amount. As the accused failed to comply despite service of notice, the complainant filed a private complaint under -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:9448 CRL.RP No. 100173 of 2020 HC-KAR Section 200 Cr.P.C. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the N.I. Act').
4. To prove his case, the complainant examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exhibits P.1 to P.16. The accused examined himself as DW.1 and got marked Exhibit D.1. The Trial Court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of ₹10,00,000/-.
5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court, the accused preferred Crl.A. No. 105/2018. The Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the material evidence on record, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court.
6. Sri P.P. Hittalamani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the complaint was filed before the -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:9448 CRL.RP No. 100173 of 2020 HC-KAR expiry of 15 days from the date of issuance of the demand notice and, therefore, the cognizance taken thereon is unsustainable. Learned counsel further submits that the complaint was filed by Sri Vinayak Ganapati Hegde on the basis of an authorization letter issued by the respondent-company; however, the said authorization letter was not produced before the Court, rendering the complaint without authority. It is further contended that PW.1, who deposed in support of the complainant as a power of attorney holder, had no knowledge of the transaction, and hence, his evidence cannot be relied upon. It is submitted that the Trial Court erred in applying the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act in favour of the complainant when the ingredients of the said provision were not satisfied.
7. Sri Z.N. Hansi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-complainant, submits that the ingredients necessary to attract the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act are satisfied. It is contended that, though the petitioner disputed the cheque, the Trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence, held that the cheque belonged to the petitioner. It is -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:9448 CRL.RP No. 100173 of 2020 HC-KAR further submitted that the defence that there was no enforceable debt to maintain a complaint under Section 138 of the Act was also negatived by the Trial Court, which found that the complainant had supplied chilly seeds to Organic Spices Trading Company owned by the petitioner, and that the non- payment of consideration towards such supply constituted an enforceable debt. As regards the contention that the demand notice was not served, it is submitted that the Trial Court recorded a finding against the petitioner.
8. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioner issued a cheque in favour of the respondent- complainant towards the supply of goods (red chilly seeds). Though this transaction was disputed by the petitioner, the evidence on record establishes that the complainant had in fact supplied red chilly seeds and that, towards payment of consideration for such supply, the cheque in question was issued, which was subsequently returned by the Bank with the endorsement "insufficient funds." Once the supply of goods is proved and a cheque is issued towards such supply, the -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:9448 CRL.RP No. 100173 of 2020 HC-KAR dishonour of the cheque attracts the provisions of Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Upon proof of the cheque and the signature thereon, the complainant is entitled to the statutory presumption in his favour under Section 139 of the Act. The conclusion reached by the Trial Court on this issue is justified, and the Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the evidence, has rightly affirmed the finding of the Trial Court. As regards the contention regarding non-service of notice, the evidence on record establishes that the demand notice was issued to the address admitted by the petitioner. The Trial Court has rightly held that the complainant had duly issued the demand notice.
9. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the fine amount be modified to be equivalent to the cheque amount. Learned counsel for the respondent seriously opposed the said submission.
10. Having regard to the fact that the transaction pertains to the year 2013 and the complainant has been striving to recover the amount towards the supply of goods, the submission to modify the fine amount to be equal to the cheque amount cannot be accepted, as the same is unreasonable. However, the -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:9448 CRL.RP No. 100173 of 2020 HC-KAR contention that the petitioner is aged 63 years and that imposition of a fine of Rs.10,00,000/- would seriously prejudice his interests merits consideration. Taking into account that the petitioner is primarily dependent on agricultural income, this Court is persuaded to modify the fine amount. Further, if fine amount imposed by Trial Court is confirmed, the same would financially prejudice the interest of the petitioner. To balance the interest of both the parties, modification of fine amount is justifiable. Hence, fine amount is modified to Rs.6,50,000/-.
11. Accordingly, the following;
Order
(i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.
(ii) The order of the trial Court in CC No.325/2016, dated 07.07.2018 and further confirmed by the Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.105/2018, dated 06.02.2020 is hereby confirmed to the extent of recording conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9448 CRL.RP No. 100173 of 2020 HC-KAR
(iii) The sentence imposed to undergo imprisonment is modified by substituting with fine amount of Rs.6,50,000/-.
(iv) Three months' time is granted to deposit the fine amount before the trial Court.
(v) If default in payment of fine amount, accused-
petitioner shall undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court.
(vi) Bail bond, if any, shall stand cancelled.
(vii) Registry to return the trial Court records along with copy of this order.
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15