M/S Gem Press Pvt. Ltd., Vs M/S Rajesh Ex Ports Ltd. — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

M/S Gem Press Pvt. Ltd., Vs M/S Rajesh Ex Ports Ltd. — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Both Criminal Revision Petitions No.191/2017 and No.423/2022 allowed; the simple imprisonment imposed by the impugned trial judgments (C.C.No.47549/2010 dated 17.05.2014; C.C.No.47552/2010 dated 08.04.2015) and the appellate judgments (Criminal Appeal No.602/2014 dated 06.01.2017; Criminal Appeal No.689/2015) set aside; fine-recovery proceedings closed as the fine stands paid; bail bonds cancelled; petitioners left at liberty to pursue rights/liabilities under the mortgage, including redemption of mortgage.

Issue for consideration

Whether the convictions and sentences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in C.C.No.47549/2010 and C.C.No.47552/2010 (as affirmed in Criminal Appeal No.602/2014 and Criminal Appeal No.689/2015) should stand, given that the petitioner has made payment in excess of the fine imposed and the amount due to the respondent under the cheques stands recovered. +1 more

Court's answer

Since it is admitted that the petitioner has made payment in excess of the amount of fine imposed in C.C.No.47552/2010, the Court held that the amount due to the respondent under the aforementioned cheques is recovered.

Ratio / Principle

The simple imprisonment imposed by the judgment dated 17.05.2014 in C.C.No.47549/2010 and the appellate judgment dated 06.01.2017 in Criminal Appeal No.602/2014 is set aside.

Key takeaways

The simple imprisonment imposed by the judgment dated 08.04.2015 in C.C.No.47552/2010 and the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.689/2015 is set aside.ratio¶69
Since the petitioners have paid the fine amount, any proceedings initiated to recover the fine amount are closed.ratio¶70
Bail bonds, if any, stand cancelled.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Anant Ramanath Hegde, J.), Oral Order dated 04.09.2025 — Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, S.138; Cr.P.C., Ss.397/401 — CRL.RP No.191/2017 c/w CRL.RP No.423/2022 — Borrower-company (M/s Gem Press Pvt. Ltd.) and its Director/Authorised Signatory convicted in C.C.No.47549/2010 (fine Rs.55,20,000/-, default simple imprisonment nine months; appeal dismissed on 06.01.2017), and the Director's wife, surety to the same loan, separately convicted in C.C.No.47552/2010 (fine Rs.70,00,000/- for dishonour of a Rs.55,00,000/- cheque, like default sentence; appeal dismissed on 06.01.2016). Counsel urged that liability cannot rest on both the Company and the surety and that discharge by one should erase the other's conviction; repayment on behalf of accused No.2 by Adil Imran Pathan in ten installments (22.05.2009 to 07.05.2014) was not disputed by the complainant (memo of calculation dated 25.10.2024). Holding that the dues under the cheques stood recovered through payments exceeding the fine, the Court allowed both revisions, set aside the simple imprisonment imposed by the trial and appellate judgments, closed the fine-recovery proceedings as the fine stood paid, cancelled bail bonds, and left the petitioners free to assert their rights under the mortgage including redemption.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:35018 CRL.RP No. 191 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 423 of 2022

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 191 OF 2017 C/W

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 423 OF 2022

IN CRL.RP No. 191/2017

BETWEEN:

M/S GEM PRESS PVT. LTD., NO 4/2, ROGERS ROAD, RICHARDS TOWN, BENGALURU - 560005, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR RIZWAN MOHAMMED KALEEMULLA.

Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

MR RIZWAN MOHAMMED KALEEMULLA , S/O USMAN ASAD, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDENT OF NO 4/2, ROGERS ROAD, RICHARDS TOWN, BENGALURU - 560005.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI BALARAJ A C, ADVOCATE)

AND:

M/S RAJESH EX PORTS LTD., COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANY ACT AND HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO 4, BATAVIA CHAMBERS KUMARA KRUPA ROAD, KUMARA PARK EAST BANGALORE - 560001.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI P RAJU, ADVOCATE)

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:35018 CRL.RP No. 191 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 423 of 2022

HC-KAR

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 17.05.2014 PASSED BY THE XXI ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGLAURU IN C.C.NO.47549/2010 AND JUDGMENT DATED 6.1.2017 PASSED BY THE LXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY IN CRL.A.NO.602/2014 AND BE PLEASED TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN.

IN CRL.RP NO. 423/2022

BETWEEN:

MRS HUSNA RIZWAN, W/O RIZWAN MOHAMMED KALLEMULLA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.4/1, ROGERS ROAD, RICHARDS TOWN, BENGALURU-560 005.

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI BALARAJ A C,ADVOCATE)

AND:

M/S RAJESH EXPORTS LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANY'S ACT AND HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.4 BATAVIA CHAMBERS, KUMARA KRUPA ROAD, KUMARA PARK EAST, BENGALURU -560 001, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE R M NANJUNDASWAMY.

...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI P RAJU, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO 1.SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED LXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.689/2015 DATED 06.01.2016 AND REMAND THE ABOVE CRL.A BY DIRECTING THE APPELLATE COURT TO RESTORE THE CRL.A ON THE FILE AND TO PROCEED FURTHER IN THE MATTER AND ETC.

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:35018 CRL.RP No. 191 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 423 of 2022

HC-KAR

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

ORAL ORDER

These two revision petitions are filed assailing the judgment convicting and sentencing the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'Act of 1881').

Criminal Revision Petition No.191/2017 is arising from the judgment dated 17.05.2014 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in C.C.No.47549/2010 and the judgment dated 06.01.2017 passed by the Sessions Court, Bengaluru in Criminal Appeal No.602/2014.

In terms of the said judgments, accused No.1 - M/s Gem Press Pvt. Ltd. and accused No.2 - Director/Authorised Signatory of accused No.1 - company

are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.55,20,000/- and in default accused No.2 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:35018 CRL.RP No. 191 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 423 of 2022

HC-KAR

of nine months. The accused had issued the cheque for Rs.55,00,000/-

Criminal Revision Petition No.423/2022 is filed assailing the conviction and sentence dated 08.04.2015 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in C.C.No.47552/2010 and the judgment dated 06.01.2016 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Criminal Appeal No.689/2015.

In terms of the said judgments, petitioner-

accused is convicted for the offence under Section 138 of Act of 1881 and is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.70,00,000/- on account of dishonour of cheque for Rs.55,00,000/-. In default, petitioner is also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of nine months.

The appeals filed by the petitioner-accused are dismissed by the Appellate Court.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both petitions would submit that the loan transaction

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:35018 CRL.RP No. 191 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 423 of 2022

HC-KAR

referred to by the complainant in both the cases are one and the same. The complainant advanced the loan to M/s Gem Press Pvt. Ltd. and accused No.2 in C.C. No.47552/2010 is the wife of accused No.2 in C.C.No. 47549/2010 and is the surety to the loan transaction.

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the complainant lodged two different complaints on account of dishonour of cheques issued by the Company as well as the dishonour of the cheques issued by the surety. He would further submit that there cannot be liability on both the Company and the surety and assuming that there is liability on both persons, in case the liability is discharged by one of the accused, then conviction and sentence against another accused has to be set-aside. It is his submission that amount is repaid on behalf of accused No.2, by one person named Adil Imran Pathan. It is his submission that the payment is made on 02.12.2014. And said payment is made in 10 installments commencing from 22.05.2009 till 07.05.2014. It is urged that the petitioners

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:35018 CRL.RP No. 191 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 423 of 2022

HC-KAR

have mortgaged the property as security in favour of the complainant/respondent.

Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant

does not dispute the payment said to have been made as aforesaid as reflected in the memo of calculation dated 25.10.2024 filed before this Court. Learned counsel for the respondent also does not dispute the fact that second complaint in C.C. No.47552/2010 is lodged against the wife of accused No.2 in C.C.No. 47549/2010 for the same transaction covered in C.C.No. 47549/2010.

Since it is admitted that the petitioner has made payment in excess of the amount of fine imposed against accused in C.C.No. 47552/2010, this Court is of the view that the amount due to the respondent under the aforementioned cheques is recovered.

Hence the following:

ORDER

(i) Criminal Revision Petition No.191/2017 and Criminal Revision Petition No.423/2022 are allowed.

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:35018 CRL.RP No. 191 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 423 of 2022

HC-KAR

(ii) Impugned judgment dated 17.05.2014 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in C.C.No.47549/2010 and the judgment dated 06.01.2017 passed by the Sessions Court, Bengaluru in Criminal Appeal No.602/2014 imposing simple imprisonment are set aside.

(iii) The impugned judgment dated 08.04.2015 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in C.C.No.47552/2010 and the judgment dated 08.04.2015 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in Criminal appeal No. 689/2015 imposing simple imprisonment are set-aside.

(iv) Since the petitioners have paid the fine amount the proceedings if any initiated to recover the fine amount are closed.

(v) Bail bonds if any, stand cancelled.

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:35018 CRL.RP No. 191 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 423 of 2022

HC-KAR

(vi) If there is any other right/s and liability created under the aforesaid mortgage, petitioners are at liberty to take such action as advised in law including one for redemption of mortgage.

SD/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

BRN/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 39

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Convictions and sentences under S.138 NI Act assailed in both revisions: (a) judgment dated 17.05.2014 of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in C.C.No.47549/2010 together with the appellate judgment dated 06.01.2017 of the Sessions Court, Bengaluru in Criminal Appeal No.602/2014 (prayer also seeks dismissal of the complaint); (b) conviction/sentence dated 08.04.2015 in C.C.No.47552/2010 together with the appellate judgment dated 06.01.2016 in Criminal Appeal No.689/2015 (prayer seeks remand/restoration of that appeal).¶22
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru; Sessions Court, Bengaluru
Prior proceeding
Trial in C.C.No.47549/2010 (judgment dated 17.05.2014): accused No.1 M/s Gem Press Pvt. Ltd. and accused No.2, its Director/Authorised Signatory, convicted under S.138 NI Act; fined Rs.55,20,000/- with default simple imprisonment of nine months on accused No.2.¶42
Prior proceeding
First appeal: Criminal Appeal No.602/2014 before the Sessions Court, Bengaluru; appellate judgment dated 06.01.2017; the appeals filed by the petitioner-accused were dismissed by the Appellate Court.¶49
Prior proceeding
Trial in C.C.No.47552/2010 (conviction and sentence dated 08.04.2015): petitioner convicted under S.138 NI Act and fined Rs.70,00,000/- on account of dishonour of cheque for Rs.55,00,000/-, with default simple imprisonment of nine months.¶48
Prior proceeding
Second appeal: Criminal Appeal No.689/2015; appellate judgment dated 06.01.2016 (styled Principal Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in the body of the order; LXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in the cause title); appeal dismissed.¶46
Prior proceeding
Relationship of the two cases: accused No.2 in C.C.No.47552/2010 is the wife of accused No.2 in C.C.No.47549/2010 and the surety to the same loan transaction; two complaints were lodged for dishonour of cheques issued by the Company and by the surety respectively.¶53
Prior proceeding
Repayment: amount repaid on behalf of accused No.2 by Adil Imran Pathan; payment recorded on 02.12.2014, made in 10 installments from 22.05.2009 to 07.05.2014; the respondent's counsel did not dispute the payment as reflected in the memo of calculation dated 25.10.2024 filed before this Court, nor that the second complaint targets the wife of accused No.2 for the same transaction.¶60