Natarajan B Vs the Nilgiri Dairy Farm Pvt. Ltd.

NATARAJAN B S/O S. BALASUBRAMANIAM AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/A NO.61, KARPAGA NAGAR, 6TH STREET, K. PUDUR, MADHURAI, TAMIL NADU – 625 007. ALSO AT DOOR NO.402, PLOT NO.171, 7TH CROSS, ROYAL GARDEENIA BOMMASANDRA, BENGALURU 560 099.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SHASHWATH S PRAKASH,ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE NILGIRI DAIRY FARM PVT.LTD., (INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956) O/A KNOWLEDGE HOUSE, SHYAM NAGAR, OPP.JOGESHWARI VIKHROLI LINK ROAD, JOGESHWARI (EAST), MUMBAI 400 060. ALSO AT 6TH FLOOR, V.K. KALYANI COMMERCIAL

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2026:KHC:36923 CRL.RP No. 962 of 2026

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

CNR: KAHC010396872026

¶19

COMPLEX,NO.22, SANKEY ROAD, BANGALORE

¶20

…RESPONDENT

¶21

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO a) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.04.2026 (ANNEXURE-A) IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.431/2023 PASSED BY THE HONBLE LXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONAL JUDGE (CCH-68) BANGALORE. b) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.03.2023 (ANNEXURE-B) OF THE LEARNED XXIV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, THE MOTHER ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AND ACMM (SCCH-26), IN C.C.NO.1230/2020.c) ACQUIT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED OF THE OFFENCE ALLEGED.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

¶25

This revision petition is filed against the

¶26

concurrent finding of conviction and sentence in CC No. 1230/2020 passed by the trial Court and also confirmation order passed in Criminal Appeal No. 431/2023 by the appellate Court.

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:36923 CRL.RP No. 962 of 2026

¶28

3 -

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

CNR: KAHC010396872026

¶31

The factual matrix of case of complainant

¶32

before the trial Court, while invoking Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘N.I. Act’ for short), it is specifically contended that the

¶33

company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of various food products under the brand of ‘Nilgiris’. The accused is an ex-employee of the complainant and was working in the capacity of the Commercial Manager-Manufacturing and was also responsible for procurement of milk from various vendors and farmers. The complainant company conducted audit in the laptop of the accused, which was furnished to him by the company. During audit, it was found that the accused by misusing his position indulged in fraudulent activities detrimental to the interest of the company and caused financial loss to the company. Therefore, case is registered against him for mis-appropriation of the amount. Thereafter, the accused requested the company to drop the charges against him as he would pay the mis-

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:36923 CRL.RP No. 962 of 2026

¶35

4 -

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

CNR: KAHC010396872026

¶38

appropriated amount to the company. Accordingly on 10.05.2019, he entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) and as per the said MOU, he had agreed to pay Rs.50,00,000/-. But thereafter, upon mutual agreement it was settled for Rs.46,00,000/-. As per the mutual agreement, the accused had paid sum of Rs.6,00,000/- by way of RTGS on 10.05.2019 and agreed to pay remaining balance amount of Rs.40,00,000/- in 4 equal installments of Rs.10,00,000/- each and issued post dated cheques in favour of the company. But thereafter, the accused issued another Cheque, i.e., the subject matter of the Cheque for Rs.10,00,000/- drawn on Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Chandapur in lieu of cheque bearing No. 19639 for the reasons best known to him. Upon presentation of the said cheque for collection, it was returned to the complainant unpaid on 06.11.2019 with endorsement ‘payment stopped by drawer’. Thereafter

¶39

legal notice was issued to the accused and it was duly served on him and accused instead of making payment

¶40

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:36923 CRL.RP No. 962 of 2026

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

CNR: KAHC010396872026

¶43

gave evasive reply on 17.12.2019. Hence complaint was filed against the accused. The cognizance was taken and the accused was secured before the Court and did not plead guilty and claims the trial.

¶44

In order to prove the case, the complainant examined two witnesses as PW.1 and PW2. He got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P13 and except a letter to the Finance Controller at Ex.D1 and a Letter to Chief Financial Officer at Ex.D2, Certificate at Ex.D3 and Ex.D4 to D6 email communications. Accused has not produced any document and only these documents were confronted by P.W.1 and even he did not choose to enter into the witness box. However, the trial Court taking into note of the dispute between the parties and issuance of Cheque and also entering into a memorandum of understanding when the case was registered against him and he had issued 4 cheques and instead of 4 cheques, he issued 1 more cheque for an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and when

¶45

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:36923 CRL.RP No. 962 of 2026

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

CNR: KAHC010396872026

¶48

the same was presented for encashment, returned with an endorsement ‘payment stopped by drawer’ and only defence which was taken that documents are obtained from the accused forcibly and filed false case. When such defence was taken that forcibly signature was taken and no action was taken and even not given any complaint. The said fact is discussed in paragraph No.15. Further, the cheque is also in respect of misappropriated amount during the period when he was working as Commercial Manager thereby comes to the conclusion that the case of complainant is not rebutted by the accused under Section 139 of N.I.Act and hence, convicted and sentence the accused for the aforesaid offence. The same is challenged before the appellate Court in Crl.A.No.431/2023 and the appellate Court also reassessed that the material available on record and also taken note of evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 in detail particularly considering the document of Ex.P4 as well as the cross-examination of P.W.1 and the same is extracted in paragraph No.15. Further, made an

¶49

7 -

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:36923 CRL.RP No. 962 of 2026

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

CNR: KAHC010396872026

¶53

observation in paragraph No.16 that Learned Magistrate has rightly observed that he has perused the material on record particularly the document at Ex.P4, i.e., memorandum of understanding entered into between the complainant’s company and the accused. Having admitted the liability, the accused had issued the cheque. Hence, it is found that the trial Court has not committed an error.

¶54

The counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in his argument would vehemently contend0 that both the Courts have committed an error by not relying upon the defence which was taken by the accused. Further, he also submit that both the Courts have gravely erred in holding that the complainant had established the existence of legally enforceable debt on liability for the offence of Section 138 of N.I.Act. He also vehemently contend that the respondent did not produce any primary books of account, ledger extract, account statements, vouchers, invoices, or other contemporaneous records

¶55

8 -

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

NC: 2026:KHC:36923 CRL.RP No. 962 of 2026

¶58

CNR: KAHC010396872026

¶59

evidencing the alleged liability. The non-production of the best evidence available would defeat the case of complainant and hence requires interference of this Court.

¶60

Having heard the revision petitioner's counsel and also on perusal of material, particularly the defence which was taken by the revision petitioner is that cheques are obtained forcibly compelling him to issue the cheques. The material is very clear that the case was registered against the revision petitioner for misappropriation of money. The FIR was also registered and thereafter he made request to settle the matter and pay the misappropriated amount. Though it was settled for Rs.50,00,000/but the same was reduced to Rs.46,00,000/- and made the payment of Rs.6,00,000/but for remaining amount is concerned, four cheques are issued and thereafter one more cheque was issued. Only in respect of Rs.10,00,000/- is concerned, the same was not honoured and when the accused took specific defence

¶61

9 -

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

NC: 2026:KHC:36923 CRL.RP No. 962 of 2026

¶64

CNR: KAHC010396872026

¶65

of compelling him to issue the cheques, it is clear that on the date of entering into the Memorandum of Understanding, he had made the payment of Rs.6,00,000/-. Though counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that he has not paid the said amount, but his relatives have paid. But when Ex.P4 came into existence, no complaint was given that he was forced to sign the document and also issued cheques. Under the circumstances, the trial Court also took note of the said fact and the same is discussed in the judgment of the trial Court and the appellate Court also taken note of the said aspect and even observations made by the trial Court is extracted in the order of the appellate Court in detail particularly in paragraph No.21. With regard to the reference of Ex.D4 -email statement, wherein it is contended that forcibly obtained his signature and an undertaking dated 10.03.2019 and this email was sent on 30.06.2019, but no action was taken for having forcibly taken his signature on the subject matter of the cheque

¶66

10 -

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

NC: 2026:KHC:36923 CRL.RP No. 962 of 2026

¶69

CNR: KAHC010396872026

¶70

and extracted the deposition of P.W.1 and particularly

¶71

taken note of the document at Ex.P4 comes to the conclusion that accused has also not produced any material to show that complainant’s company has created certain documents only for the purpose of this case. Though he produced Exs.D1 to D5 in support of his defence, but these documents are not available so as to rebut the statutory presumptions available to the accused, in detail taken note of the same and confirmed the order of the trial Court. When such being the case, when there is no material to evidence the fact that the accused was forced to issue the cheque, but adverse inference can be drawn under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 because he has failed to discharge his duties, that too rebutting the evidence of complainant under Section 139 of N.I.Act and no probable case is made out.

¶72

Under the circumstances, I do not find any

¶73

error on the part of the trial Court and the appellate Court,

¶74

NC: 2026:KHC:36923 CRL.RP No. 962 of 2026

¶75

11 -

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

CNR: KAHC010396872026

¶78

passing conviction and sentence against the revision petitioner. Hence, not a case for entertaining the revision petition and the same is dismissed .

¶79

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶80

SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46

Natarajan B v. the Nilgiri Dairy Farm Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Natarajan B v. the Nilgiri Dairy Farm Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harshwardhan Chauhan Vs State of Karnataka

Shubha Amrutha Vs Rathnakar Venkat Yedanapudi

Sri. Basavaraju Vs Sri. T. D. Murthy

N Gundu Rao Vs D N Jayashree

Sri R Siddalinga Murthy Vs Sri Devappa

H P Manjunatha Vs D v Bhujalingappa