Sri. T.Karthik Raja, Vs Sri. V.M. Prabhakar

SRI. T. KARTHIK RAJA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O. SRI. THYAGARAJ, M/S. A.K. INTERNATIONAL, NO.66, 2^ND RIGHT CROSS, PUTTAPPA COLONY, NEW THIPPASANDRA, BENGALURU-560 075.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. A. ABHINAV RAMANAND, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SRI. V.M. PRABHAKAR, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O. LATE V.K. MADHAVAN, M/S. MARUTHI GINGER TRADERS, MAIN ROAD, KUDIGE, KUSHALNAGAR HOBLI, SOMWARPET TALUK, KODAGU-571 234.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PETITIONER TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU-MADIKERI IN CRL.A.NO.79/2025 DATED 12.02.2026 AND THEREBY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER AND ETC.

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:34672 CRL.RP No. 820 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

This matter is listed for admission and I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

¶24

2. The factual matrix of case of the complainant before the trial Court while initiating the proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘N.I. Act’ for short) is that complainant is a reputed grower, trader and merchant of quality green ginger at Kudige, Kushalnagar Hobli, Somwarpet Taluk, Kodagu and on coming to know the same, the accused came to Kudige and started to deal with the complainant and was regularly purchasing green ginger from the complainant at Kudige and used to transport the same at his own costs and consequences of the accused in the lorries and vehicles of the accused with a clear understanding and assuring the complainant that

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2026:KHC:34672 CRL.RP No. 820 of 2026

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

RMC invoices, bills, permits would be the concern and responsibility of the accused and that the accused would look after the same and whenever the accused was unable to come over to Kudige, personally the accused wanted the complainant to supply green ginger to the accused and that RMC invoices, bills, permits would be the concern of the complainant. On 01.03.2016, the accused came down to Kudige and purchased from the complainant at Kudige, Kushalnagar, 1,000 each bags of quality green ginger of ‘Rigodi’ variety, each bag weighing 60 kgs at the rate of Rs.1,500/- for each bag of green ginger and towards the payment of the amount, the accused issued a Cheque in favour of the complainant informing the complainant that the said Cheque for Rs.15,00,000/- would be honoured by the Bank on presentation of the Cheque on the due date mentioned in the Cheque or on subsequent dates.

¶29

3. It is also stated in the complaint that to his utter surprise that he received a notice dated 13.03.2016

¶30

from the accused making false statement and demanding

¶31

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:34672 CRL.RP No. 820 of 2026

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

the complainant to send to the accused, in support of RMC bills towards payments taken from the side of the accused to the complainant’s Canara Bank on account basis till date and claiming that the rates are fixed by APMC Committee and that it is the duty of the complainant to provide the RMC invoices to verify the same and account the same and that the other suppliers of the accused from other parts of Karnataka have been providing clear supporting of RMC bills with quantity, rate consignee name AK International and further the accused demanded the complainant to return back four Cheques from Bank of Baroda which was allegedly given as PDC Cheques and that the complainant had failed to provide the alleged supporting documents such as RMC bills and that once the complainant M/s. Maruthi Ginger Trading to consignee favouring AK International, the accused would submit the same to his accounts and verify the pending balance, if any, payable as the accounts team of the accused allegedly felt that complainant had collected alleged

¶34

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:34672 CRL.RP No. 820 of 2026

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

excess on account payments and beyond RMC fixed rates and that purportedly the accused had received huge claims from his customers due to the alleged using of substandard mesh bags, let of pilferage, weight loss, blackish colour ginger supplied and rotten 99% and the complainant states that the said allegations made in the said notice are all false allegations and are made only to dupe the complainant of his money due to the complainant by the accused and to knock off the green ginger purchased by the accused from the complainant.

¶37

4. It is further stated that to his utter shock, he received another notice dated 15.03.2016 from the accused, claiming that the accused had been making payments through Canara Bank account of the complainant and as well as by cash on various occasions on account basis and that the accused had allegedly requested the complainant to submit his bills supported by RMC permits in the name of the accused and that the complainant had failed to honor the alleged request of the

¶38

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:34672 CRL.RP No. 820 of 2026

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

accused for a long time and that it was obvious to understand that RMC permits are mandatory as an supporting documents for the invoice of the complainant in the name of the accused as regards to the value claimed by the complainant and that in the absence of same, the

¶41

accused was unable to reconcile his account as to understand the dues receivable or payable towards the supply by the complainant continued till the end of February, 2016 and that the accused had brought to the notice of the complainant that his overseas buyers at the other end had reported pilferage and weight loss of the material and that the complainant had allegedly supplied due to alleged application of improper bags used for packing with alleged inadequate mess in addition to the alleged reported receipt of material in fungus formed and that 4 Cheques were allegedly given as security at the commencement of the transaction had been revoked and the complainant states that statements made by the

¶42

7 -

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:34672 CRL.RP No. 820 of 2026

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

accused are all false, tissues of imagination, made only to dupe the complainant of his money.

¶46

5. It is the case of the complainant that when the

¶47

Cheque was presented towards the legal liability for encashment on 24.03.2016 and to his utter surprise, the Cheque was returned by the bank with an endorsement ‘payment stopped by drawer’ and the same is done deliberately to defeat the claim of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant issued legal notice to the accused on 25.04.2016 and the same was duly served on

¶48

the accused and untenable reply was given and the accused did not turn up to comply the demand. Hence, the complainant was filed against the accused, cognizance was taken and the accused was secured. He did not plead guilty and claims the trial.

¶49

6. In order to prove the case, the complainant

¶50

examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined another witness by name Sanjay B.C. as P.W. 2. and got marked

¶51

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:34672 CRL.RP No. 820 of 2026

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

documents Exs.P1 to P8. On the other hand, the accused also examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked the documents Exs.D1 to D4. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence and particularly evidences of P.W.1 and P.W.2, comes to the conclusion that the accused has purchased ginger from the complainant and as against the same, Cheque is issued and later on, immediately letters are sent demanding RMC bills. Further, the Trial Court also taken note of the admission on the part of D.W.1 in the cross-examination with regard to the RMC bill is concerned where there is a clear admission on the part of D.W.1 that is extracted in paragraph No.18 of the judgment that there is no necessity of RMC bills and the same are not mandatory and the same is his concern and passed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The same is challenged before the First Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.79/2025. The First Appellate Court also

¶54

9 -

¶55

NC: 2026:KHC:34672 CRL.RP No. 820 of 2026

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence available on record comes to the conclusion that there is no dispute with regard to purchase of ginger and also issuance of Cheque and the defence which was taken was not substantiated by the accused by placing the evidence before the Court. Even no rebuttal evidence by the accused as required under Section 139 of the N.I. Act in view of the defence which was taken.

¶58

7. Further, the First Appellate Court having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence available on record comes to the conclusion that the Trial Court has not committed any error in appreciating the evidence available on record and even with regard to the defence which was taken by the accused was also discussed in paragraph No.39. The First Appellate Court also considered the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 in paragraph Nos.17 and 19 regarding quantity of the ginger which was purchased and also taken note of admission on the part of the D.W.1 during the course of cross-examination in

¶59

10 -

¶60

NC: 2026:KHC:34672 CRL.RP No. 820 of 2026

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

paragraph Nos. 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 and summed up the case of the complainant and accused and comes to the conclusion that the trial Court has not committed any error. Against the finding of the Trial court and also the First Appellate Court, the present revision petition is filed before this Court.

¶63

8. The main contention of learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner before this Court is that Cheque which is marked as Ex.P1 is evident that the same has been issued by the entity, namely M/s. A. K. International. The complaint also discloses that the transaction in question pertains to the supply of goods to the said entity. However, the complainant has not initiated the proceedings under Section 200 of Cr.PC against M/s. A. K. International, which is the drawer of the Cheque.

¶64

Further, the counsel also submits that the complainant ought to have made M/s. A.K. International as party to the proceedings and without prejudice to the above aspects, he contends that, it is pertinent to the case of the

¶65

11 -

¶66

NC: 2026:KHC:34672 CRL.RP No. 820 of 2026

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

complainant that complainant has not made out the case to invoke Section 138 of N.I. Act.

¶69

9. Further, it is contend that the revision petitioner has produced the passport, boarding pass and bills which are marked as Exs.D1 to D4 to demonstrate that he was travelling at the relevant time and he was not in Kushalnagar. The counsel also would vehemently contend that when the accused has not personally visited and purchased them, the question of proving the liability on the part of revision petitioner does not arise. The counsel would vehemently contend that answer elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 is nothing but rebuttal of the case of the complainant by placing on record the documents as well as the evidence. The counsel would vehemently contend that the Trial Court committed an error in relying upon the evidence of P.W.2, who claims to be an employee of M/s. A. K. International and credentials to the said effect are not furnished. The evidence of P.W.2 is tailor-made and

¶70

12 -

¶71

NC: 2026:KHC:34672 CRL.RP No. 820 of 2026

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

prepared at the instructions of the complainant and no weightage could be given to the evidence of P.W.2.

¶74

10. Per contra, the counsel appearing for the respondent would vehemently contend that there is no dispute with regard to purchase of ginger and only after purchase of ginger, a notice was sent and he further contends that when the notice of demand was made with regard to the RMC bill is concerned, the same is admitted in the cross examination of D.W.1 that no such bills are required while transporting the ginger and the same is extracted by the Trial Court in paragraph No.18 of the judgment. Apart from that, categorical admission was made by D.W.1 that whatever the ginger was purchased from the complainant, the same was sold to others. The said admission was also taken note of by the trial Court in paragraph Nos.18, 19, 20 and 21. Even the Trial Court also taken note of the admission on the part of D.W.1 with regard to the transaction is concerned and the evidence of D.W.1 remains very clear that the transaction has taken

¶75

13 - NC: 2026:KHC:34672 CRL.RP No. 820 of 2026

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

place between the complainant and the accused and the accused failed to rebut the presumption. As such, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused. The same is confirmed by the First Appellate Court and no grounds are made out by the revision petitioner to prove his case.

¶78

11. Having heard learned counsel for revision petitioner as well as the learned counsel for respondent, it is not in dispute that the transaction is with regard to purchase of ginger by the accused from the complainant and the same is sold to other persons. It is also the specific case of the complainant that the accused has purchased 1,000 bags of ginger at the rate of Rs.1,500/per bag from the complainant, the subject of matter of Cheque is issued by the accused in favour of complainant and the accused also admitted the issuance of Cheque, but only taken the defence that RMC bills are required while transporting the ginger. Further, notice was issued by the accused for the purchase of ginger at the instance of

¶79

14 -

¶80

NC: 2026:KHC:34672 CRL.RP No. 820 of 2026

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

complainant and to that effect, the admission is taken note of by the Trial Court in paragraph No.18 of its judgment and extracted his admission that no need of RMC bills and the same is not mandatory and he sold the ginger what he had purchased from the complainant. Apart from the evidence of P.W.2, with regard to presence of revision petitioner on the date of transaction is concerned, the revision petitioner has produced the documents at Exs.D1 to D4 i.e. passport, boarding pass and hotel bills before the First Appellate Court and the same was taken note of in paragraph No.39 of its judgment.

¶83

12. Further, with regard to evidence of P.W.2 is concerned, he is the employee of the accused, who has purchased the ginger from the complainant on behalf of the accused, even though the accused was not in station. The Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have not committed any error in considering both oral and documentary evidence available on record and rightly comes to the conclusion that the accused has not disputed

¶84

NC: 2026:KHC:34672 CRL.RP No. 820 of 2026

¶85

15 -

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

the issuance of Cheque and his signature on it. Once the issuance of Cheque and the signature is admitted, statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of N.I.Act arises in favour of the complainant and the burden lies on the accused to rebut the same. The accused failed to rebut the presumption and no documents are produced to substantiate his case before the Trial Court, but before the First Appellate Court, the accused has produced his passport, boarding pass and hotel bills to substantiate that he was abroad at the relevant point of time and this does not mean that he can escape from his liability and the very admission on the part of accused that RMC bills are not required while transporting the ginger and the same is taken note of and extracted by the Trial Court in paragraph No.18 of its judgment and the evidence of P.W.2, who is the employee of accused is clear that he had purchased the ginger on behalf of accused. Hence, I do not find any grounds to entertain the revision petition and the scope of revision is very limited and only when the

¶88

NC: 2026:KHC:34672 CRL.RP No. 820 of 2026

¶89