Court criminal revision petitions regarding cheque bounce cases under Section 138 NI Act, dismissing appeals and confirming conviction based on statutory presumption and prior judicial admissions despite lack of delivery signatures.
Criminal revision petitions dismissed; judgments of conviction and sentence confirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRL.RP No.100025/2020 C/W CRL.RP.No.100024/2020 CRL.RP.No.100026/2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100025/2020
C/W
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100024/2020 CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100026/2020
IN CRL.RP.NO.100025/2020
BETWEEN
M.C. SUBRAMANYAM REDDY S/O. M.C. SUBBAREDDY AGE. 59 YEARS, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER IN KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LTD., HOSAPETE, BALLARI DISTRICT – 583 102.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. V. VIDYA, ADVOCATE)
AND
SRI.BALAJI STEEL TRADERS DEALERS IN IRON, STEEL AND CEMENT BY ITS PROPRIETOR, RAVINDRA REDDY S/O. LAKSHMI REDDY, AGE .54 YEARS, R/O H.B.J.COMPLEX, BESIDE M.B.S.L.HIGH SCHOOL, MOKA ROAD, BALLARI-583101.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI Y. LAXMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE)
THE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 R/W SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.4/2018 DATED 31/10/2019 AND THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 06/01/2018 PASSED IN CC NO.1026/2016 (OLD CC. NO.920/2008) ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BALLARI, FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE NI ACT, AND ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION WITH COSTS.
IN CRL.RP.NO.100024/2020
BETWEEN
M.C.SUBRAMANYAM REDDY S/O. M.C.SUBBAREDDY AGE . 59 YEARS, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER IN KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LTD., HOSAPETE, BALLARI DISTRICT – 583 102.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT V. VIDYA, ADVOCATE)
AND
SRI. BALAJI STEEL TRADERS DEALERS IN IRON, STEEL AND CEMENT BY ITS PROPRIETOR, RAVINDRA REDDY S/O. LAKSHMI REDDY, AGE. 54 YEARS, R/O H.B.J.COMPLEX, BESIDE M.B.S.L.HIGH SCHOOL, MOKA ROAD, BALLARI – 583 101.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI Y. LAXMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE)
THE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 R/W SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.3/2018 DATED 31/10/2019 AND THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 06/01/2018 PASSED IN CC
CRL.RP No.100025/2020 C/W CRL.RP.No.100024/2020 CRL.RP.No.100026/2020
NO.1025/2016 (OLD CC. NO.921/2008) ON THE FILE OF I ADDTIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BALLARI, FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 138 OF NI ACT, AND ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION WITH COSTS.
IN CRL.RP.NO.100026/2020
BETWEEN
M.C.SUBRAMANYAM REDDY S/O.M.C.SUBBA REDDY AGE. 59 YEARS, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER IN KARNATAKA RURAL INFRAUSTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LTD., HOSAPETE, BALLARI DISTRICT – 583 102.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. V. VIDYA, ADVOCATE)
AND
SRI.BALAJI STEEL TRADERS DEALERS IN IRON, STEEL AND CEMENT BY ITS PROPERIETOR, RAVINDRA REDDY S/O. LAKSHMI REDDY, AGE. 54 YEARS, R/O H.B.J.COMPLEX, BESIDE M.B.S.L.HIGH SCHOOL, MOKA ROAD, BALLARI – 583 102.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI Y. LAXMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 R/W SECTION 401 OF THE CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELLARI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.5/2018 DATED 31/10/2019 AND THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 06/01/2018 PASSED IN CC NO.1024/2016 (OLD CC. NO.922/2008) ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BALLARI, FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE NI ACT, AND ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION WITH COSTS.
- 4 - CRL.RP No.100025/2020 C/W CRL.RP.No.100024/2020 CRL.RP.No.100026/2020
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 22.11.2022, THIS DAY, THE ,COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
These criminal revision petitions are connected together for disposal as the accused and the complainant are same in all the three cases.
ranking in the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.
The complainant was doing business of iron, steel and cement under the name and style as M/s. Shri Balaji Steel Traders. The accused was doing business with the complainant and he maintained a running account with the complainant. The accused in acquaintance with the complainant, had purchased steel and cement on 31.03.2008 to 21.05.2008 for a sum of Rs.5,45,003/- and also availed a loan of Rs.20,000/- in respect of the said transaction. The accused had issued three cheques drawn on Corporation Bank, Ballari, in favor of the complainant for a sum of Rs.2,65,000/- dated 28.03.2008,
CRL.RP No.100025/2020 C/W CRL.RP.No.100024/2020 CRL.RP.No.100026/2020
Rs,80,000/dated 07.05.2008 and Rs.2,00,000/dated 10.06.2008 respectively.
In Crl.RP. No.100025/2020
In Crl.RP. No.100026/2020
In Crl.RP. No.100024/2020
witnesses i.e., PW.1 and PW.2 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.22. On the other hand, the defence has not led any evidence in support of its contention.
CRL.RP No.100025/2020 C/W CRL.RP.No.100024/2020 CRL.RP.No.100026/2020
CRL.RP No.100025/2020 C/W CRL.RP.No.100024/2020 CRL.RP.No.100026/2020
No material is placed before the Court regarding the purchase
order placed by the accused for supply of steel and cement.
CRL.RP No.100025/2020 C/W CRL.RP.No.100024/2020 CRL.RP.No.100026/2020
Supreme Court reported in the case of Nagindas Ramdas Vs. Dalpatram Iccharam alias Brijram and others reported in AIR 1974 SC 471.
CRL.RP No.100025/2020 C/W CRL.RP.No.100024/2020 CRL.RP.No.100026/2020
accused have been doing business transaction with respect to
CRL.RP No.100025/2020 C/W CRL.RP.No.100024/2020 CRL.RP.No.100026/2020
iron, steel and cement. The complainant being the retail trader used to supply materials to the accused and the accused was placing the orders for supply of goods. According to the complainant-PW.1, the accused placed orders for supply of iron, steel and cement during 31.03.2008 to 21.05.2008, for a sum of Rs.5,45,003/- and also including hand loan of Rs.20,000/-.
| SL.No. | CHEQUE NUMBER | AMOUNT | DATE |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | 309204 | 2,65,000/- | 28.03.2008 |
| 2. | 312501 | 80,000/- | 17.05.2008 |
| 3. | 325798 | 2,00,000/- | 10.06.2008 |
| TOTAL | 5,45,000/- |
“ 139. Presumption in favour of holder:- It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, or any debt or other liability”.
CRL.RP No.100025/2020 C/W CRL.RP.No.100024/2020 CRL.RP.No.100026/2020
2009-10 pertaining to the complainant which indicates about the transaction held between him and the accused.
“226. From a conspectus of the cases cited at the bar, the principle that emerges is, that if at the time of the passing of the decree, there was some material before the Court, on the basis of which, the Court could be prima facie satisfied, about the existence of a statutory ground for eviction, it will be presumed that the Court was so satisfied and the
CRL.RP No.100025/2020 C/W CRL.RP.No.100024/2020 CRL.RP.No.100026/2020
decree for eviction, though apparently passed on the basis of a compromise, would be valid. Such material may take the shape either of evidence recorded or produced in the case, or, it may partly or wholly be in the shape of an express or implied admission made in the compromise agreement, itself, Admissions, if true and clear, are by far the best proof of the facts admitted. Admissions in pleadings or judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and 553. constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the. foundation of the rights of the parties On the other hand evidentiary admissions which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.
which PW.1 has admitted that, there is no mention about the accused placing the order of supply of cement and there is one more admission in the notice that, he has not stated regarding the goods having been supplied to the accused and further PW.1 admitted that, he has not mentioned in the complaint about the details of the balance amount. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant has not produced any other documents except Ex.P.9 to Ex.P.15 to show that the said goods have been delivered to the accused. This Court is of the considered opinion that, the above admissions are not sufficient to rebut the presumption as envisaged under Section 139 of N. I. Act. The loan transaction between the complainant and the accused has been mentioned in the income tax returns filed by the complainant. Therefore, it is conclusive proof regarding the loan transaction. The accused has not produced any documents to show that he has cleared the said debt.
of law in arriving at a conclusion that the accused is held guilty of offence under Section 138 of the N. I. Act.
points which arose for my consideration are answered as:-
(b) Point No.2 in the ‘negative’.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
(ii) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and its confirmation order passed by the Sessions Court in all these three cases are confirmed.
JUDGE
Sd/-
PJ
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the concurrent findings of conviction recorded by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court are justifiable under Section 138 of the NI Act?
Whether the legal presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act was properly rebutted by the accused given the judicial admissions and income tax return evidence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nagindas Ramdas Vs. Dalpatram Iccharam alias Brijram and othersReferred¶108
AIR 1974 SC 471 · Who else cites this
Section 58 of the Evidence ActReferred¶113
4 provisions across 2 enactments
M.C. Subramanyam Reddy
Sri Balaji Steel Traders
S. Rachaiyah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
