Dismissed

M/S Srlb Food Products Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Lakki Paint O Chem

Karnataka HC8 Jun 2026CRL.RP/786/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a criminal revision petition seeking to quash conviction, sentence, and bail for cheque dishonour. The court held that the accused's categorical admission of the debt and subsequent cheque default at the trial stage negated grounds for revision.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; no grounds found to condone delay or suspend sentence.

M/S Srlb Food Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Lakki Paint O Chem — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:27083 CRL.RP No. 786 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

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

¶8

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.786 OF 2026

¶9

(397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS))

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

M/S SRLB FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD

¶12

REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶13

SRI BHARAT KUMAR B R

¶14

S/O RAMALINGAIAH

¶15

AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS OFFICE AT NO.251, 14^TH MAIN ROAD NANDA LAYOUT, BENGLURU-560 061.

¶16

Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA

¶17

SRI.BHARATH KUMAR B.R. S/O RAMALINGAIAH DIRECTOR, M/S SRLB FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD DIRECTOR, NO.251, 14^TH MAIN ROAD, NANDA LAYOUT BENGALURU. 560 061.

¶18

…PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA A V., ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

M/S LAKKI PAINT O CHEM REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR. GANAPATHI BHAT OFFICE AT NO.53 AND 54, HAROHALLI INDUSTIES AREAS KANAKPURA, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT -562 112

¶22

…RESPONDENT THIS CRL. RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23/02/2024 PASSED IN

¶23

¶24

NC: 2026:KHC:27083 CRL.RP No. 786 of 2026

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

C.C.NO.27901/2022, BY THE LEARNED XXXVI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BANGALORE AND CONFIRMED IN CRL.A.NO.505/2024 DATED: 02.02.2026 BY THE LRD. LII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-53) IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

This matter is listed for consideration of I.A.No.1/2026, wherein there is a delay of 8 days in filing the revision petition, and also I.A.No.2/2026 for suspension of sentence and bail.

¶31

Having considered the reasoning of the Trial Court, particularly in paragraph No.19, wherein the Trial Court extracted the admission on the part of the accused that there was a due by the company to the extent of Rs.35,74,256/- and also that a reply was given in terms of Ex.P17, and further, in paragraph No.20, extracted the admission of the accused that Ex.P1-cheque was given towards the rent and electricity bill, and that the said cheque was presented before the Bank and the same was dishonoured with an endorsement of "Insufficient Funds".

¶32

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:27083 CRL.RP No. 786 of 2026

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

The accused has categorically admitted the issuance of notice subsequent to the bouncing of the cheque and has also admitted that the said notice was served. No reply was given to the said notice.

¶35

When such admissions are extracted by the Trial Court and when there is a categorical admission on the part of the accused, the question of considering the revision petition does not arise. The very admission on the part of the accused before the Trial Court takes away the case of the revision petitioner. The First Appellate Court, having considered these admissions, disposed of the appeal confirming the judgment of the Trial Court.

¶36

When such being the case, no ground is made out to consider the revision petition. The scope of a revision petition is limited only to examining the legality and correctness of the impugned judgment.

¶37

Hence, I do not find any ground to entertain the revision petition either by condoning the delay or by

¶38

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:27083 CRL.RP No. 786 of 2026

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

suspending the sentence. Accordingly, the revision petition

¶42

is dismissed .

¶43

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶44

¶45

LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 13

M/S Srlb Food Products Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Lakki Paint O Chem

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Srlb Food Products Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Lakki Paint O Chem

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Susheelamma Vs Sri D S Damarugendra

Paramesha K S Vs Arunkumar K K@ Arun

Yenjappa S/O Siddappa Vs Smt.Kenchamma W/O Muddappa

Mr a Alfred Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Jayakumar B Vs Mr. Basavaraju U H

Titan Engineers Vs M/S.Trident Industries