Chandrashekar Textiles Vs M/S. Sri Skanda Silks

A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, CHANDRASHEKAR, S/O BALARAJU, AGED 44 YEARS, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT ANJANEYA TEMPLE STREET, KUDUR, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA 561 101.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI.H S SANTHOSH, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

M/S. SRI SKANDA SILKS

¶15

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SURESH A, S/O LATE ACHUTHA NAYAK, AGED 45 YEARS, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 27, 1ST FLOOR, SRI SADAN COMPLEX, BASAVANNA LANE, J M MASJID ROAD CROSS, BANGALORE 560 002.

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI. K N NITISH, ADVOCATE)

¶19

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED

¶20

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:31576 CRL.RP No. 1765 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

TO SET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 03.09.2025 PASSED BY THE LVII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE IN CRL. A.NO. 1585/ 2023 CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 06/10/2023 PASSED BY THE XIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE BANGALORE IN C.C.NO. 24383/2019 AND SUBSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FROM THE ALLEGED OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSON, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner and

¶27

the counsel appearing for respondent.

¶28

2. The factual matrix of the case of complainant before the trial Court while initiating the proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NI Act’ for short) that complainant is a proprietorship concern dealing with the business of raw silk yarn and other allied products. Accused is the proprietorship concern of

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:31576 CRL.RP No. 1765 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

M/s. Chandrasekhar Textiles, who is carrying on business at Kudur. The accused used to approach the complainant for the purpose of purchase of goods for his business and order to cater his customers. The complainant and accused have various business transactions. The accused has approached the complainant for delivery and supply of goods to cater his customers and also complainant is well versed with the credibility of the accused has agreed to supply the required goods. The complainant has supplied the said goods to the accused. The complainant used to maintain account ledger extract for the period from 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018 and 01.04.2018 to 31.03.2019. The complainant apart from the said ledger extract, has obtained confirmation of accounts from the accused dated 31.03.2019 and their balance are outstanding due to the complainant from the accused for the period from 01.04.2018 to 24.03.2019. However, the accused after having received the goods from the complainant has failed to make the payments and even after the complainant

¶32

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:31576 CRL.RP No. 1765 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

visited him for several times seeking payments of money,

¶35

he failed to make the payment. Thereafter, the complainant issued legal notice on 06.06.2019 demanding the amounts. The complainant approached and demanded accused to pay the amount and therefore, the accused has issued the subject matter of cheque dated 01.07.2019 for an amount of Rs.22,10,000/- (Rupees Twenty two lakhs ten thousand only) in favour of complainant. When the said cheque was presented by the complainant, the same was returned with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’ on 04.07.2019. Inspite of repeated demand made by the complainant, the accused failed to make the payment of the said amount. Thereafter, the legal notice was issued to him and the same was duly served on him. The accused failed to pay the amount and hence, the complaint was filed against the accused and cognizance was taken.

¶36

3. The accused was secured and he did not plead

¶37

guilty. The complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and

¶38

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:31576 CRL.RP No. 1765 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

got marked 19 documents as Exs.P1 to P19. The counsel

¶41

for the accused at first instance examined the witness in part. The evidence of P.W.1 and also the reply elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 are extracted in paragraph No.18 for having received the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) and the balance amount is Rs.7,09,743/-. (Rupees Seven lakh nine thousand seven hundred and forty three only). Having received the total amount of Rs.9,09,753/- (Rupees Nine lakhs nine thousand seven hundred and fifty three only) and also taken note of the other bill to the tune of Rs.12,43,490/- (Rupees Twelve lakhs forty three thousand four hundred and ninety only) and the document at Ex.P12 i.e., confirmation of accounts pertaining to 01.04.2018 to 31.03.2019 is marked and so also in respect of the invoice is concerned, though it is not produced in the first instance but the same is produced before the trial Court by further examining P.W.1 and got marked document at Ex.P14. Further, the witness was not further cross-examined.

¶42

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:31576 CRL.RP No. 1765 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

4. Having perused the material on record

¶45

particularly the cheque was issued consequent upon the legal notice issued to the accused as per Ex.P7 and also Exs.P10 to 12 i.e., ledger account extracts as well as copy of confirmation of accounts by the accused and Ex.P14-bill

¶46

of supply to the accused, the trial court convicted the accused in C.C.No.24383/2019 and the same is challenged before the appellate Court in Crl.A.No.1585/2023.

¶47

5. The appellate Court having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence, particularly taking note of the reply elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 in the crossexamination, as well as document produced before the Court and also taken note of the liability which has been acknowledged by the accused and also issuance of cheque consequent upon Ex.P7 and also the invoice at Ex.P14 confirmed the order of the trial Court.

¶48

6. Learned counsel appearing for revision

¶49

petitioner would vehemently contend that the trial Court failed to consider the fact of payment of Rs.2,00,000/-.

¶50

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:31576 CRL.RP No. 1765 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

Further the counsel would also contend that no material is supplied, but the counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the Ex.P1-cheque is given consequent upon the legal notice issued as per Ex.P7 and also brought to notice of this Court that the invoice is also produced before the Court which discloses the transaction between

¶53

the complainant and accused and so also Ex.P12.

¶54

7. Having heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner and the counsel appearing for respondent and also on perusal of material on record, it is very clear that the amount which was paid by the accused to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- was deducted from the total amount and accused was due for an amount of Rs.19,53,233/- and the same is considered in paragraph No.20 of the judgment of the trial Court and subsequently

¶55

the cheque was issued by the accused to the tune of Rs.22,10,000/-. When such material is placed before this Court and also considered by the trial Court and even no further cross- examination is made disputing Ex.P14, I do

¶56