Dismissed¶61

Mr Sudheer Shetty v. M/S M a Krishna Nayak and Co.

Karnataka HC21 Jul 2026CRL.RP/326/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRL.RP No.326 of 2026, High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (H.P. Sandesh J), decided 21.07.2026, CNR KAHC010130662026 — criminal revision dismissed; concurrent findings of Trial Court (C.C.No.1117/2016, judgment dt. 17.12.2022) and Appellate Court (Crl.A.No.11/2023, judgment dt. 20.01.2026) upheld in cheque-dishonour matter (BPCL dealer; diesel on credit; Rs.31,01,682.07 due per Ex.P11A); accused's credit-purchase admission; ledger and bills not produced; no rebuttal evidence under Section 139 N.I. Act; Rajesh Jain v Ajay Singh (2023) 10 SCC 148 relied on; filed U/S. 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

No ground was found to admit the revision petition; it was dismissed, the concurrent findings of the courts below standing. ¶61

Mr Sudheer Shetty Vs M/S M a Krishna Nayak and Co. — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶61

Issue for consideration

Whether the concurrent judgments of the Trial Court (C.C.No.1117/2016) and the Appellate Court (Crl.A.No.11/2023) contain errors warranting interference in revision — the petitioner contending that PW1's admission of a monthly-collection policy made accumulation of dues of Rs.31,00,000/- in a single month logically impossible and that the courts wrongly relied on Ex.P11 instead. +1 more

¶51

Court's answer

No ground was found to admit the revision petition; it was dismissed, the concurrent findings of the courts below standing.

¶61

Ratio / Principle

Having considered the petitioner's submissions, the reasoned orders of both courts below and the principles in Rajesh Jain v Ajay Singh on rebuttal evidence, the Court found nothing to conclude that the orders of the Trial Court and Appellate Court were vitiated by illegality or incorrectness or that there was miscarriage of justice (source phrasing is garbled but the operative conclusion is non-interference and dismissal).

¶61

Key takeaways

The dismissal rested on the accused's categorical cross-examination admission that he was taking fuel from the complainant on credit basis, and on his failure to produce the ledger and bills he claimed to maintain despite contending that subsequent purchases were for cash.ratio¶57
Endorsing the position that there was no rebuttal evidence as envisaged under Section 139 of the N.I. Act and no material showing payment, the Court held the accused's defence unsubstantiated.ratio¶57

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision under S.397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C against concurrent convictions in a cheque-dishonour complaint by a BPCL dealer (dues of Rs.31,01,682.07 for diesel supplied on credit; cheque dated 27.09.2016 returned endorsed 'funds insufficient'). The accused had categorically admitted purchasing fuel on credit and, though contending that he later paid cash and maintained a ledger and bills, produced none of them; there was no rebuttal evidence as envisaged under Section 139 of the N.I. Act and no material of payment. Taking note of the principles in Rajesh Jain v Ajay Singh (2023) 10 SCC 148 on rebuttal evidence, the Court found no illegality, incorrectness or miscarriage of justice in the Trial Court's judgment dated 17.12.2022 (C.C.No.1117/2016) or the Appellate Court's confirming judgment dated 20.01.2026 (Crl.A.No.11/2023) and dismissed the revision.

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:37480 CRL.RP No. 326 of 2026

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

CNR: KAHC010130662026

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶6

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶7

BEFORE

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶9

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.326 OF 2026

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

MR SUDHEER SHETTY AGED 47 YEARS S/O VISHWANATHA SHETTY MANIKANTA TRANSPORT, 134/G INDUSTRIAL AREA, BAIKAMPADY MANGALURU-575011

¶12

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANTHOSH NAGARALE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI JINENDRA B, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

M/S M A KRISHNA NAYAK AND CO BPCL DEALERS, CAR STREET MANGALURU, DAKSHINA KANNADA KARNATAKA PARTNERSHIP FIRM REP BY ITS PARTNER SRI. MANEL ANNAPPA NAYA

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT AND ORDER ON SENTENCE DATED 20.01.2026 PASSED IN CRL. APPEAL NO.11/2023 BY

¶17

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:37480 CRL.RP No. 326 of 2026

¶20

CNR: KAHC010130662026

¶21

THE HONBLE I ADDL. PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, D.K., MANGAURU AND ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

This revision petition is filed against the judgment dated 17.12.2022 passed in C.C.No.1117/2016 by the Trial Court and also against the judgment dated 20.01.2026 passed in Crl.A.No.11/2023 by the Appellate Court.

¶26

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶27

The factual matrix of case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that the complainant is the dealer in BPCL and in the course of business, the accused has been purchasing diesel on credit basis for his trucks from the retail outlets of the complainant. In discharge of the amount due to the complainant, accused issued Cheque dated 27.09.2016. On presentation of the said Cheque, the same was returned with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. Hence, legal notice was

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:37480 CRL.RP No. 326 of 2026

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

CNR: KAHC010130662026

¶31

issued calling upon the accused to repay the amount covered under the Cheque and the same was served on the accused but he failed to repay the Cheque amount and did not reply to the said notice. Hence, complaint has been lodged, cognizance was taken and accused appeared before the Trial Court and he did not plead guilty and claims for trial.

¶32

In order to prove the case of the complainant, examined one witness as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P19. On the other hand, accused also examined himself as DW1. The Trial Court having taken note of the evidence available on record in paragraph 19 wherein evidence of PW1 was extracted and PW1 denied that Ex.P1 was taken as a blank cheque and denied the suggestion that contents of Ex.P1 are not in the handwriting of accused and deposed that accused is liable to pay the Cheque amount. In paragraph 20 discussed the evidence of the accused who has been examined as DW1 and also in paragraph 22 taken note of inconsistent stands which were taken and in respect of notice is not served,

¶33

in paragraph 23 taken note of unclaimed notice and also the shara that intimation was delivered as per Ex.P7 and also

¶34

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:37480 CRL.RP No. 326 of 2026

¶37

CNR: KAHC010130662026

¶38

admission given by DW1 that he had received the notice of demand. The Trial Court also taken note of the cross examination of DW1 wherein he admits that he can produce the ledger extract and other Incidental bills, but fails to produce those documents. Considering the material on record, held that transaction according to the complainant is one month transaction that is before September 2016 and in paragraph 27 comes to the conclusion that complainant has furnished the cheque at Ex.P1 which itself depicts that accused, in discharge of the liability, has issued the cheque in question which was dishonored and complainant also furnished the IT return document pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18 at Ex.P11A which depicts that accused is due for a sum of Rs.31,01,682.07. When the document was disputed regarding income tax return, the Trial Court assessed the same in paragraph 27 and comes to the conclusion that IT returns discloses that the complainant has submitted the transaction details pertaining to the year of 2016-2017 and the assessment year is 2017-18 and the financial year 2016-17 can also be termed as the proceedings of previous year of 2016-17 and

¶39

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:37480 CRL.RP No. 326 of 2026

¶42

CNR: KAHC010130662026

¶43

income of such year will become taxable in the assessment year and hence accepted the document of Ex.P11 wherein it clearly disclosed with regard to liability is concerned. Thus, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused.

¶44

Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred by the accused before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court having taken note of the evidence of PW1 and also the admission on the part of DW1 in paragraph 16 and answer elicited in the cross examination was discussed in paragraph 17 that he was running Manikanta Transport which is a proprietary concern and he is the proprietor of the said concern. According to him, the said business concern was running by him about 5 years back to the date of filing the Complainant. Further he deposed that in 2016-2017 he had 5 Tata Tanker vehicles and now, he is not having the memory of the registration number of those vehicles. In paragraph 18 also taken note that DW1 has admitted that complainant is a dealer in Bharat Petroleum. However, he denied the suggestion that he used to purchase the fuel from the complainant on credit basis. But he admits that previously he was having office at

¶45

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:37480 CRL.RP No. 326 of 2026

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

CNR: KAHC010130662026

¶48

Baikampadi and also admitted that his office was having a staff by name Prabhakara and further deposed that he is not having any documents to substantiate his contention that Ex.P1 cheque was issued for security purpose and according to him, he had the contract with Bharat Petroleum Agency in respect of transportation and the said business was with him since 2013 to 2017. The Appellate Court taking note of all these admissions and the part of DW1 comes to the conclusion that the Trial Court is right in convicting and sentencing the accused and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.

¶49

Being aggrieved by the said concurrent finding, the

¶50

present revision petition is filed before this Court.

¶51

The main contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioner before this Court is that both the Courts have committed an error in relying upon the evidence of the complainant and fails to take note of the defence of the accused. PW1 admitted in cross-examination that their policy is to collect payment every month and stop the supply if payment is not made immediately. If that is true, logically impossible for the petitioner to collect dues of Rs.31,00,000/- in a single

¶52

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC:37480 CRL.RP No. 326 of 2026

¶55

CNR: KAHC010130662026

¶56

month i.e., for a short period and the same has not been considered by the Trial Court, instead of that Trial Court taken note of document of Ex.P11. Hence, it requires interference.

¶57

Having considered the submission of the counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the reasons assigned by the Trial Court wherein the accused categorically admitted in his cross-examination that he was taking the fuel from the complainant on credit basis. Though it is contended that subsequently, he was purchasing the same on payment of cash and he has maintained the Ledger and bills, but not produced the same before the Court. The very specific case of the complainant that the amount was due for purchase of fuel and the same is also declared in the income tax as per Ex.P11 and the same was also considered by the Trial Court. The Appellate Court also considered the actual due by the accused and comes to the conclusion that except the accused examining himself as DW1, nothing is placed on record to substantiate his contention and there is no any rebuttal evidence as envisaged under Section 139 of N.I. Act and not produced the material for having paid the amount. The Apex Court also in the judgment

¶58

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:37480 CRL.RP No. 326 of 2026

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

CNR: KAHC010130662026

¶61

of RAJESH JAIN vs AJAY SINGH reported in (2023) 10 SCC 148 summarized with regard to the rebuttal evidence. Having taken note of principles laid down in the said judgment and when reasoned order has been passed by considering the evidence of complainant and accused as well as the documentary evidence nothing is found to comes to other conclusion that the orders of the Trial Court and Appellate Court suffer from its legality and correctness and there is miscarriage of justice while considering the evidence available on record. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit the revision. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.

¶62

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶63

Mr Sudheer Shetty v. M/S M a Krishna Nayak and Co.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Sudheer Shetty v. M/S M a Krishna Nayak and Co.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramachandra Rao Vs Subbe Gowda

Sri Srikanth v Vs Sri Mohan C

Sri Chethan Vs State of Karnataka

Sri G K Jalan Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Mr. Nithyananda Shetty Vs Mr. Prasad Acharya

Suraj Sriram Vs Vijayashree R