2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 33400
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
SRI GANESH TRADERS – Appellant
Versus
M/S TEGGINAMANI SALES CORPORATION – Respondent
CRL.RP 100428 / 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100428 OF 2023 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI GANESH TRADERS VEERAPUR ONI, HUBBALLI-580020.
2. MURAGESH ]S/O YALLAPPA PUAJR AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, PROPRIETOR OF SRI. GANESH TRADERS, VEERAPUR ONI, HUBBALLI-580020.
…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CHINAMAY G. BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GIRISH V. BHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digit ally signed by V N M/S TEGGINAMANI SALES CORPORATION BADIGER REP. BY AUTHORIZED GPA HOLDER Location: High PRAKASH S/O MURUGEPPA KOTTARSHETTY Court of AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: MANAGER, Karnataka, M/S. TEGGINAMANI SALES CORPORATION, Dharwad Bench APMC YARD, HUBBALLI-580025.
…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. H.N.HACHINAMANI, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ADMIT THE PETITION AND CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD SITTING AT HUBBALLI IN CRL. APPEAL NO. 5016/2023 DATED 30.10.2023 DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF SENTENCE PASSED BY THE LEARNED I JMFC COURT, HUBBALLI DATED 13.02.2023 IN C.C.NO. 305/2020, CONVICTING THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SEC. 138 OF N.I. ACT AND IMPOSING FINE OF RS. 24,44,200/- IN DEFAULT TO PAY THE FINE AMOUNT, TO UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS, AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONERS OF THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST HIM.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)
Heard Sri.Chinmay G. Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.S.N. Hanchinamani, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. Revision petitioner is the accused who suffered an order of conviction in C.C. No.305/2020 for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981(for short hereinafter ’NI Act’) and ordered to pay compensation in a sum of Rs.24,44,200/- of which Rs.24,39,200/- is to be paid as compensation to the complainant and Rs.5,000/- towards the defraying expenses of the State.
3. Order of conviction and sentence got confirmed in Crl.A.No.5016/2023.
4. Facts in the nutshell which are at most necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under:
4.1 A complaint came to be filed under Section 200 of Cr.PC alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act by contending that complainant is running the business in the cattle feeds in the name and style of Ms.Tegginamani Sales Corporation. Accused No.2 runs a business in the name and style of Ganesh traders and he was a regular customer of the complainant who is to purchase cattle feeds. There was an arrangement of supply of the cattle feeds on credit basis. Out of the trust developed between the accused No.2 and the complainant, cattle feeds were supplied between the period 01.04.2019 to 09.11.2019 amounting to sum of Rs.90,54,252/-. Out of the said amount, accused made a part payment in a sum of Rs.71,19,255/- and there was a due of sum of Rs.19,35,000/-. Towards the repayment of that amount, accused issued three cheques amounting to Rs.19,35,000/- which on presentation came to be dishonoured with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’ Notice issued calling upon the accused to make good the amount was not complied nor replied. Therefore, the complainant sought for action against the accused.
5. Accused stood for the trial in CC No.305/2020 and learned trial judge after noting the overall evidence of the complainant and documentary evidence placed on record vide Ex.P1 to P21, comprising dishonoured cheques, bank endorsement, copy of the legal notice, ledger extract, audit report, attested copy of the cheques, raised the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and convicted the ac