Dismissed¶46

S C Mohan v. Hot Man Builders Private Ltd.

Karnataka HC16 Jan 2025CRL.A/682/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, CRL.A No. 682 of 2013, decided 16.01.2025 by Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar. Section 138 N.I. Act — criminal liability of a company that is not the drawer of the dishonoured cheque; Directors signing a cheque drawn on another company's account; drawer company (M/s. RVNS Exim Private Limited) not arraigned as accused; acquittal of Hotman Builders Private Limited upheld; complainant's appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. dismissed; Section 139 N.I. Act presumption contention raised by appellant did not alter the result because the arraigned accused was not the drawer.

What did the court decide?

Cheque Ex.P.1 is drawn on the account of M/s. RVNS Exim Private Limited; the drawer of the cheque is M/s. RVNS Exim Private Limited, and it is signed by two Directors of that company. ¶44

S C Mohan Vs Hot Man Builders Private Ltd. — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1567 CRL.A No. 682 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 682 OF 2013

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

S C MOHAN S/O LATE CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS COURT, R/O SOORANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HOLENARASIPURA TOWN DISTRICT HASSAN.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SMT. BHAVANA PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI MALIPATIL P S, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

HOT MAN BUILDERS PRIVATE LTD., No.315, 5^TH MAIN ROAD 2^ND BLOCK, R T NAGAR BANGALORE - 560 032.

¶12

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTORS.

¶14

S SRINIVASAMURTHY S/O LATE VENKAESHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/O No. N.A. 79, BELL COLONY JALLAHALLI POST BANGALORE - 560 013.

¶15

AND

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1567 CRL.A No. 682 of 2013

¶17

S SRINIVASAMURTHY S/O LATE VENKATESHAMAPPA R/O No.14, CAR STREET DODDABALLAPURA TOWN BANGALORE RURAL.

¶18

B PRASHANTHA S/O B MAHADEVA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/O No. 315, 5^TH MAIN ROAD 2^ND BLOCK, R T NAGAR BANGALORE - 560 032.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI T C SANTHOSH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI M A RAJENDRA, ADVOCATE V/O DTD. 12.06.24 – R1 IS DEAD)

¶21

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4) Cr.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE C.J. AND J.M.F.C., HOLENARASIPURA IN C.C.No.493/2010 - ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I.ACT AND ETC.,

¶22

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

This appeal is filed by the complainant challenging the judgment of acquittal of the respondents dated 05.06.2013 passed in C.C. No. 493/2010 by Civil Judge and JMFC, Holenarasipura whereunder the respondents – accused have been acquitted for offence

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1567 CRL.A No. 682 of 2013

¶27

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short hereinafter referred to as `N.I. Act’).

¶28

It is the case of the appellant – complainant is that the respondents – accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs as loan from the complainant on 30.04.2009. Said amount was paid by the complainant to the accused – Company through its Directors. The accused - Company had issued a cheque of M/s. RVNS Exim Private Limited bearing No. 564198 drawn on Indian Bank, M.G. Road, Bangalore, dated 30.04.2010. Said cheque on presentment came to dishonoured for reason Account Closed’ on 07.05.2010. The complainant got issued legal notice. Registered post sent to first accused was returned with shara left the place’ and notice sent to the address of Doddaballapura returned as the accused had died on 03.06.2010. As the cheuqe amount is not repaid, the complainant filed a private complaint against the respondents. The trial Court after recording the sworn statement has taken cognizance and registered C.C. No.

¶29

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1567 CRL.A No. 682 of 2013

¶30

493/2010 against the accused persons for offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

¶31

The appellant – complainant in order to prove his case examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12. Statement of the accused persons came to be recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused

¶32

did not lead any defence evidence. The trial Court after hearing arguments on both sides formulated points for consideration and passed the impugned judgment of acquittal. Said judgment of acquittal has been challenged by the complainant in this appeal.

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondents on admission.

¶34

Learned counsel for appellant would contend that S. Srinivasa Murthy and B. Prashanth, as Directors of Hotman Builders Private Limited, borrowed Rs.5.00 lakhs from the complainant and for making repayment of the same, issued cheque – Ex.P.1 drawn on the account of M/s. RVNS Exim Private Limited and the same came to be dishonoured as `account closed’. Said two persons have

¶35

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1567 CRL.A No. 682 of 2013

¶36

issued the said cheque for repayment of the amount borrowed and they are the Directors of both M/s. RVNS Exim Private Limited and Hotman Builders Private Limited. She contends that the accused persons have not denied their signature on the cheque – Ex.P.1. As the signature on the cheque is admitted, a presumption is to be drawn under Section 139 of the N.I. Act that the cheque is issued for making payment of legally enforceable debt/liability. Without considering these aspects learned Magistrate has erred in acquitting the respondents for offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

¶37

Learned counsel for respondent would contend

¶38

that drawer of Ex.P.1 – cheque is M/s. RVNS Exim Private Limited and it is signed by two Directors of the said Company. Said M/s. RVNS Exim Private Limited - drawer of Ex.P.1 has not been arraigned as an accused. One Hotman Builders Private Limited represented by its Directors has been arraigned as accused. Said Hotman Builders Private Limited is not the drawer of the cheque and therefore, offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is

¶39

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:1567 CRL.A No. 682 of 2013

¶41

not attracted against the Directors of Hotman Builders Private Limited. Considering the said aspect the learned Magistrate has rightly acquitted the respondents for offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

¶42

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶43

this Court has perused the impugned judgment of acquittal and the trial Court records.

¶44

Cheque – Ex.P.1 is drawn on the account of M/s. RVNS Exim Private Limited. The drawer of the cheque is M/s. RVNS Exim Private Limited. Cheque - Ex.P.1 is signed by two Directors of M/s. RVNS Exim Private Limited. Said M/s. RVNS Exim Private Limited has not been arraigned as an accused, instead Hotman Builders Private Limited has been arraigned as an accused. Said Hotman Builders Private Limited is not the drawer of the cheque – Ex.P.1. As Hotman Builders Private Limited is not the drawer of the cheque – Ex.P.1 it cannot be prosecuted for offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act for dishonour of the cheque of M/s. RVNS Exim Private Limited. Hotman Builders Private Limited and M/s. RVNS Exim Private

¶45

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:1567 CRL.A No. 682 of 2013

¶46

Limited are two different companies. Even though the Directors of both the companies are same, cheque – Ex.P.1 has been drawn on the account of M/s. RVNS Exim Private Limited. Considering the said aspect, Hotman Builders Private Limited has not committed any offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Considering the said aspect the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents. There are no grounds for admitting the appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

¶47

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶48

LRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

S C Mohan v. Hot Man Builders Private Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S C Mohan v. Hot Man Builders Private Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. P. Shanthilal Jain Vs Smt. Indira @ Indumathi

Sri Nagaraju Vs Sri Kodanda Rama Raju

Sri B S Kumaraswamy Vs Sri Nagendramurthy

N Ramesh Vs Muniswamappa

Sri P Vinod Kumar Vs Sri Abdul Sattar

Sri Manohara M N Vs the State of Karnataka