Dismissed¶166

Nclose Technologies v. M/S Geeta Monitors Pvt. Ltd.

Karnataka HC15 Jul 2026CRL.RP/991/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

S.138 NI Act cheque dishonour; endorsement 'payment stopped by drawer'; five connected CRL.RPs Nos. 983, 986, 991, 1001 and 1002 of 2021; Ex.P7 balance-confirmation letter admitting Rs.8,39,122/-; e-mails Exs.P8-P13 admitted; Section 65-B certificate objection; Sri Ramachandra Narayan Talawar v. Kumar Soukharya, ILR 2017 KAR 2555; limited scope of revisional jurisdiction under S.397/401 CrPC; fine of Rs.9,70,000/- held proportionate; Karnataka High Court, Justice H.P. Sandesh, decided 15.07.2026; revision petitions dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None; the convictions under S.138 NI Act and the sentences (fine with default simple imprisonment) stand upheld as the revision petitions are dismissed. ¶166

Nclose Technologies Vs M/S Geeta Monitors Pvt. Ltd. — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the convictions under S.138 NI Act and the sentences (fine with default simple imprisonment) stand upheld as the revision petitions are dismissed.

¶166

Issue for consideration

Whether the concurrent convictions and sentences under S.138 NI Act passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the First Appellate Court suffer from illegality or incorrectness warranting exercise of revisional jurisdiction. +1 more

¶147

Court's answer

Since issuance of the cheques and signatures thereon are undisputed and the Ex.P7 balance of Rs.8,39,122/- payable by the accused stands undisputed, there is no error on the part of the Trial Court or the First Appellate Court.

¶159

Ratio / Principle

The accused did not dispute issuance of the cheques, the amounts mentioned therein, the part payment of Rs.3,94,250/-, or the total liability of Rs.11,33,372/-; their sole contention that cheques collected as security were misused does not discharge the liability.

¶153

Key takeaways

Once the petitioners admitted their signature on Ex.P7 and the e-mails (Exs.P8 to P13) were categorically admitted through P.W.1's cross-examination, the contention that only the signature and not the contents were admitted cannot be accepted.ratio¶153
The scope of revision is very limited; revisional jurisdiction can be exercised only where the Court concludes that the evidence on record was not considered and it leads to miscarriage of justice.ratio¶147

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Five connected criminal revision petitions under S.397 r/w 401 CrPC by Nclose Technologies and its proprietor Mansoor A.M. against concurrent convictions under S.138 of the N.I. Act by the XLII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru (judgments dated 27.04.2018), affirmed by the LVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (orders dated 03.05.2021). Held: issuance of the cheques and the signatures thereon were never disputed; the accused admitted his signature on Ex.P7 confirming an outstanding balance of Rs.8,39,122/-, and the e-mails (Exs.P8-P13) stood admitted in P.W.1's cross-examination; part payment of Rs.3,94,250/- out of the total of Rs.11,33,372/- was equally undisputed. The defence that eleven cheques collected as security were misused was rejected, and the pendency of a challenge to the B-report did not alter the position. The aggregate fine of Rs.9,70,000/- was held proportionate to and commensurate with the liability. Revisional jurisdiction being very limited, exercisable only where evidence was ignored leading to miscarriage of justice, the revision petitions were dismissed.

¶1

¶2

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36102 CRL.RP No. 1002 of 2021 C/W CRL.RP No. 983 of 2021 CRL.RP No. 986 of 2021 AND 2 OTHERS

¶3

CNR: KAHC010292892021

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

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

¶8

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1002 OF 2021 C/W.

¶9

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.983 OF 2021 CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.986 OF 2021 CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.991 OF 2021 CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1001 OF 2021

¶10

IN CRL.RP NO.1002/2021:

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

NCLOSE TECHNOLOGIES NO.3, RATNA VILAS ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BENGLAURU-560 004 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR. MANSOOR A.M.

¶13

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

MR. MANSOOR A.M., AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS PROPRIETOR NCLOSE TECHNOLOGIES NO.3, RATNA VILAS ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BENGLAURU-560 004.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. MUKUNDA P., ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

M/S. GEETA MONITORS PVT. LTD., NO.38/1, N.S. IYENGAR STREET SHESHADRIPURAM

¶19

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:36102 CRL.RP No. 1002 of 2021 C/W CRL.RP No. 983 of 2021 CRL.RP No. 986 of 2021 AND 2 OTHERS

¶22

CNR: KAHC010292892021

¶23

BENGALURU-560 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. ASHOK A. CHHABRIA.

¶24

…RESPONDENT

¶25

(BY SRI. ANAND MUTTALLI, ADVOCATE)

¶26

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 03.05.2021 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE LVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-59) IN CRL.A.NO.1014/2018 CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 27.04.2018 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE XLII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.16209/2016 CONVICTING THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.138 OF N.I. ACT AND SENTENCING TO PAY FINE OF RS.1,20,000/- AND IN DEFAULT TO UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF ONE MONTH AND TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINANT FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED.

¶27

IN CRL.RP NO.983/2021:

¶28

BETWEEN:

¶29

NCLOSE TECHNOLOGIES NO.3, RATNA VILAS ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU-560 004 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPIREITOR MR. MANSOOR A.M.

¶30

MANSOOR A.M., PROPRITOR NCLOSE TECHONOLOGIES NO.3, RATNA VILAS ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU-560 004.

¶31

...PETITIONERS

¶32

(BY SRI. MUKUNDA P., ADVOCATE)

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:36102 CRL.RP No. 1002 of 2021 C/W CRL.RP No. 983 of 2021 CRL.RP No. 986 of 2021 AND 2 OTHERS

¶35

¶36

CNR: KAHC010292892021

¶37

AND:

¶38

M/S. GEETHA MONITORS PVT. LTD., NO.38/1, N.S. IYENGAR STREET SHESHADRIPURAM BENGALUR-560 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. ASHOK A. CHHABRIA

¶39

...RESPONDENT

¶40

(BY SRI. ANAND MUTTALLI, ADVOCATE)

¶41

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 03.05.2021 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE LVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY IN CRL.A.NO.1013/2018 CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 27.04.2018 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE XLII A.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.11278/2016 CONVICTING THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF THE N.I. ACT AND SENTENCING TO PAY FINE OF RS.2,30,000/- AND IN DEFAULT TO UNDERGO S.I FOR A PERIOD OF ONE MONTH AND TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINANT FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED.

¶42

IN CRL.RP NO.986/2021:

¶43

BETWEEN:

¶44

NCLOSE TECHNOLOGIES NO.3, RATNA VILAS ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU-560 004 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR. MANSOOR A.M.

¶45

MR. MANSOOR A.M. PROPRIETOR NCLOSE TECHNOLOGIES

¶46

¶47

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36102 CRL.RP No. 1002 of 2021 C/W CRL.RP No. 983 of 2021 CRL.RP No. 986 of 2021 AND 2 OTHERS

¶48

CNR: KAHC010292892021

¶49

NO.3, RATNA VILAS ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU-560 004.

¶50

...PETITIONERS

¶51

(BY SRI. MUKUNDA P.,ADVOCATE)

¶52

AND:

¶53

M/S. GEETA MONITORS PVT LTD NO.38/1, N.S. IYENGAR STREET SHESHADRIOPURAM BENGALURU-560 020 REPREENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. ASHOK A. CHHABRIA.

¶54

...RESPONDENT

¶55

(BY SRI. ANAND MUTTALLI, ADVOCATE)

¶56

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 03.05.2021 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE LVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY (CCH-59) IN CRL.A.NO.1012/2018 CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 27.04.2018 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE XLII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.11276/2016 CONVICTING THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT AND SENTENCING TO PAY FINE OF RS.1,20,000/- AND IN DEFAULT TO UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF ONE MONTH.

¶57

IN CRL.RP NO.991/2021:

¶58

BETWEEN:

¶59

NCLOSE TECHNOLOGIES NO.3, RATNA VILAS ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU-560 004

¶60

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

NC: 2026:KHC:36102 CRL.RP No. 1002 of 2021 C/W CRL.RP No. 983 of 2021 CRL.RP No. 986 of 2021 AND 2 OTHERS

¶63

CNR: KAHC010292892021

¶64

REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR. MANSOOR A.M.

¶65

MR. MANSOOR A.M. PROPRIETOR, NCLOSE TECHNOLOGIES NO.3, RATNA VILAS ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU-560 004.

¶66

...PETITIONERS

¶67

(BY SRI. MUKUNDA P., ADVOCATE)

¶68

AND:

¶69

M/S. GEETA MONITORS PVT. LTD., NO.38/1, N.S. IYENGAR STREET SHESHADRIPURAM BENGALURU-560 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECSTOR MR. ASHOK A. CHHABRIA

¶70

...RESPONDENT

¶71

(BY SRI. ANAND MUTTALLI, ADVOCATE)

¶72

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 03.05.2021 PASSED BY THE COURT OF LVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-59) IN CRL.A.NO.1016/2018 CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DATED 27.04.2018 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE XLII ACMM, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.1437/2017 CONVICTING THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT AND SENTENCING TO PAY FINE OF RS.1,20,000/- AND IN DEFAULT TO UNDERGO S.I FOR A PERIOD OF 1 MONTH AND TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINANT FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED.

¶73

NC: 2026:KHC:36102 CRL.RP No. 1002 of 2021 C/W CRL.RP No. 983 of 2021 CRL.RP No. 986 of 2021 AND 2 OTHERS

¶74

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

CNR: KAHC010292892021

¶77

IN CRL.RP NO.1001/2021:

¶78

BETWEEN:

¶79

NCLOSE TECHNOLOGIES NO.3, RATNA VILAS ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU-560 004 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR. MANSOOR A.M.

¶80

MR. MANSOOR A.M. PROPRIETOR NCLOSE TECHNOLOGIES NO.3, RATNA VILAS ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU-560 004.

¶81

...PETITIONERS

¶82

(BY SRI. MUKUNDA P., ADVOCATE)

¶83

AND:

¶84

M/S. GEETA MONITORS PVT. LTD., NO.38/1, N.S. IYENGAR STREET SHESHADRIPURAM BENGALURU-560020 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECSTOR MR. ASHOK A. CHHABRIA

¶85

...RESPONDENT

¶86

(BY SRI. ANAND MUTTALLI, ADVOCATE)

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:36102 CRL.RP No. 1002 of 2021 C/W CRL.RP No. 983 of 2021 CRL.RP No. 986 of 2021 AND 2 OTHERS

¶91

CNR: KAHC010292892021

¶92

THE OFFENCES P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT AND SENTENCING TO PAY FINE OF RS.2,30,000 AND IN DEFAULT TO UNDERGO S.I FOR A PERIOD OF 1 MONTH AND TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINANT FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED.

¶93

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

¶94

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

¶95

ORAL ORDER

¶96

These matters are listed for admission. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent.

¶97

These five connected revision petitions are taken up for common disposal, since the parties are one and the same in all the cases and in respect of the very same transaction.

¶98

These revision petitions are filed against concurrent finding directing the complainant to pay the compensation amount and also confirmation order passed by the First Appellate Court in respective appeals.

¶99

The factual matrix of case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that complainant is a dealer and supplier of

¶100

¶101

HC-KAR

¶102

NC: 2026:KHC:36102 CRL.RP No. 1002 of 2021 C/W CRL.RP No. 983 of 2021 CRL.RP No. 986 of 2021 AND 2 OTHERS

¶103

CNR: KAHC010292892021

¶104

computers and electronic accessories. Accused No.2 being the proprietor of accused No.1 had running account in respect of rentals of computers and note books from the past three years. The accused No.2 offered to purchase all the computer’s and note books which were rented out by the complainant to the accused No.1 for Rs.3,69,250/- in respect of the invoice dated 29.07.2015. As on 29.07.2015, the total outstanding amount was Rs.11,33,372/-, inclusive of the outstanding rental arrears and purchase value of computers. The accused No.1 represented by accused No.2 issued a subject matter of Cheques and when the Cheques were presented in all the cases, returned with an endorsement ‘payment stopped by drawer’ and notice was issued and untenable reply was given. Hence, filed the complaint invoking Section 138 of N.I. Act. The Trial Court took cognizance in all the cases and secured the accused and accused did not plead guilty and claims trial.

¶105

Hence, in all the cases, complainant was examined as P.W.1 in respect of the different Cheques and got marked the documents Exs.P1 to P19. On the other hand, accused also examined himself as D.W.1 and also relied upon the documents

¶106

¶107

HC-KAR

¶108

NC: 2026:KHC:36102 CRL.RP No. 1002 of 2021 C/W CRL.RP No. 983 of 2021 CRL.RP No. 986 of 2021 AND 2 OTHERS

¶109

CNR: KAHC010292892021

¶110

of Exs.D1 to D7, particularly relied upon the case registered against the complainant in Crime No.32/2016 and also copy of the complaint and filing of suit in O.S.No.413/2007 and invoice in O.S.No.413/2007 and tax invoices consisting of 203 pages.

¶111

The Trial Court having taken note of evidence of P.W.1 and D.W.1, particularly considered the document of Ex.P7 i.e., the confirmation of outstanding balance of Rs.8,39,122/- and i.e., the amount in all the cases for invoking Section 139 of N.I.Act.

¶112

The complainant to substantiate his contention and transaction mainly relies upon the Board's resolution, subject matter of the Cheques, signature of the accused on legal notice and postal acknowledgment, particularly, the e-mail copies at Exs.P8 to P13 and also B-report which was filed as against the complaint filed by the accused and so also, Ex.P17 and Exs.P14 and P15-email and statement of accounts respectively to evidence the balance amount from the accused, Certificate under Section 65-B and invoices and also taken note of the answer elicited from the mouth of D.W.1 during the course of cross-examination and in paragraph No.20, taken note of

¶113

10 -

¶114

NC: 2026:KHC:36102 CRL.RP No. 1002 of 2021 C/W CRL.RP No. 983 of 2021 CRL.RP No. 986 of 2021 AND 2 OTHERS

¶115

HC-KAR

¶116

CNR: KAHC010292892021

¶117

evidence of P.W.1 and D.W.1 that in all, accused had paid Rs.3,94,250/- and balance amount is Rs.8,39,122/-, out of the total amount of Rs.11,33,372/- and also taken note that different cases are filed and in the cross- examination of P.W.1, nothing is elicited that entries made in the records i.e., statement of account relied upon by the complainant was not doubted i.e., Exs.P14 and P15.

¶118

The learned counsel for the petitioners-accused argued that no Certificate under Section 65-B and the same was taken note of and the documents produced are certified copies and Trial Court has also taken note of the fact that accused has given consent to mark the documents Exs.P14, P15 and also not disputed at the time of marking and relied upon the judgment reported in SRI RAMACHANDRA NARAYAN TALAWAR vs. KUMAR SOUKHARYA AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2017 KAR 2555 with regard to said aspect. The main case of the accused is that complainant has collected 11 Cheques in connection with the transaction in 2015-2016 in respect of invoice No.4242. The accused has paid the amount shown in the said invoice and in fact, the accused

¶119

11 -

¶120

HC-KAR

¶121

NC: 2026:KHC:36102 CRL.RP No. 1002 of 2021 C/W CRL.RP No. 983 of 2021 CRL.RP No. 986 of 2021 AND 2 OTHERS

¶122

CNR: KAHC010292892021

¶123

has paid excess amount than the amount what they are claiming and even to substantiate the same that they have collected 11 Cheques towards security, no positive and acceptable evidence also placed before the Court. Hence, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that document of Exs.D1 and D2 will not come to the aid of the petitioners, as the B- report was filed and the same was not challenged. The Trial Court, particularly taking note of the evidence on record, more particularly, Ex.P7-confirmation letter observed that, it could be gathered that accused confirmed that he was due to pay an amount of Rs.8,39,122/- to the complainant. Having considered particularly this document and also to prove that the accused had paid the balance amount of Rs.3,94,250/-, nothing was place on record. Hence, accepted the case of complainant and defence was not accepted, particularly, in view of Ex.P7.

¶124

Being aggrieved by the orders of the Trial Court in all the cases, Criminal Appeals are filed and same grounds are urged in all the appeals contending that there was no liability and the Cheques which were collected were misused. The First Appellate Court also having reassessed both oral and

¶125

12 -

¶126

NC: 2026:KHC:36102 CRL.RP No. 1002 of 2021 C/W CRL.RP No. 983 of 2021 CRL.RP No. 986 of 2021 AND 2 OTHERS

¶127

HC-KAR

¶128

CNR: KAHC010292892021

¶129

documentary evidence available on record, taken note of evidence of D.W.1 and the accused had made the payment of Rs.3,94,250/- and also taken note of the allegations made in all the cases and the total amount due is Rs.11,33,372/-. The First Appellate Court also taken note of payment of part amount with regard to the difference amount is concerned which was confirmed as per Ex.P7. The First Appellate Court also upheld the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence, the present revision petitions are filed before this Court.

¶130

The common grounds are urged in all the revision petitions that very approach of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court is erroneous and the revision petitioners have displaced the evidence of the complainant during the course of cross-examination of P.W.1. The counsel also would submit that the First Appellate Court made an observation that the petitioners not disputed the liability to the tune of Rs.11,33,252/- and P.W.1 himself has admitted that no documents have been produced to show that the accused was due to pay Rs.11,33,252/-. The counsel also would submit that both the Courts failed to consider the documents of Exs.D1 and

¶131

13 -

¶132

NC: 2026:KHC:36102 CRL.RP No. 1002 of 2021 C/W CRL.RP No. 983 of 2021 CRL.RP No. 986 of 2021 AND 2 OTHERS

¶133

HC-KAR

¶134

CNR: KAHC010292892021

¶135

D2 and observations made by the Court that B-report was not challenged is against the records and the same was challenged before the appropriate Court and both the Courts failed to take note of the document of Ex.P7 and observation is made that no action was taken in respect of Ex.P7 is concerned and in the document Ex.P7, except the signature of D.W.1, there is no other details and the same was not proved. The counsel also would contend that both the Courts filed to consider the fact that respondent produced the e-mail which is marked as Ex.P17 and at the time of marking Ex.P13 dated 21.01.2016 at 11.01 a.m. e-mail was not there and cross-examination of petitioners was denied in e-mail dated 21.01.2016 and also produced the document of O.S.No.413/2017 which is marked as Ex.D7. The counsel would vehemently contend that those Cheques which have been collected i.e., 11 Cheques are misused and learned Magistrate has failed to consider that the respondent stated in his legal notice, complaint, sworn statement and his affidavit evidence is that “represented by petitioner No.2 being the proprietor of the same and had a running account in respect of rentals of computers and notebooks from the past three years”

¶136

14 -

¶137

HC-KAR

¶138

NC: 2026:KHC:36102 CRL.RP No. 1002 of 2021 C/W CRL.RP No. 983 of 2021 CRL.RP No. 986 of 2021 AND 2 OTHERS

¶139

CNR: KAHC010292892021

¶140

and the respondent produced Exs.P14 and P15-statement of account and Ex.P19-invoices in total 223 pages and in that mentioned the rental invoices and also sales invoices and all these documents are created by the respondent for the purpose of case, in order to make wrongful gain. The counsel also vehemently contend that when B-report was challenged before the appropriate Court and the same is pending consideration, the Trial Court ought not to have given such finding and the First Appellate Court also committed an error.

¶141

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would vehemently contend that there is no dispute with regard to issuance of Cheques and signature available in the Cheques and only defence is that 11 Cheques were collected and the same were misused. But, the Trial Court taken note of admitted document of Ex.P7 which was confronted to D.W.1 during the course of cross-examination and he categorically admits the balance of Rs.8,39,122/- and even the documents of Ex.P8 to P13 are also confronted during the course of cross-examination of D.W.1 and the same is admitted by the accused and is marked and all these materials

¶142

NC: 2026:KHC:36102 CRL.RP No. 1002 of 2021 C/W CRL.RP No. 983 of 2021 CRL.RP No. 986 of 2021 AND 2 OTHERS

¶143

15 -

¶144

HC-KAR

¶145

CNR: KAHC010292892021

¶146

were taken note of and the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court appreciated the evidence available on record and the First Appellate Court also re-appreciated the material available on record. Hence, no grounds are made out to admit the revision petitions.

¶147

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the respondent and also considering the material available on record, this Court has to examine whether the orders of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court suffers from its legality and correctness. The scope of revision is very limited and only if the Court comes to the conclusion that the evidence available on record is not considered and if it leads to miscarriage of justice, then only, the Court can exercise its revisional jurisdiction.

¶148

Having considered the material on record, it is not in dispute that there was transaction between the complainant and accused. The only defence which was taken by the accused is that 11 Cheques were collected and the same were misused. In the case on hand, though the liability is disputed by the

¶149

NC: 2026:KHC:36102 CRL.RP No. 1002 of 2021 C/W CRL.RP No. 983 of 2021 CRL.RP No. 986 of 2021 AND 2 OTHERS

¶150

16 -

¶151

HC-KAR

¶152

CNR: KAHC010292892021

¶153

accused, but not disputed the issuance of Cheques and also the amounts mentioned. It is also very specific that when the document of Ex.P7 was confronted to the accused, he categorically admits his signature. But, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that only signature is admitted, but contents of the document are not admitted and the said contention cannot be accepted, once the petitioners admit the signature and taken note of answers elicited from the mouth of P.W.1, wherein he categorically admits the documents of e-mail which are marked as Exs.P8 to P13. When such correspondence of e-mails are admitted and also it is the specific case of the complainant that part payment was made to the extent of Rs.3,94,250/- and towards the balance amount, accused had issued the Cheques in question, the accused also not disputed the fact that part payment of Rs.3,94,250/- was paid and also not disputed that the liability is to the tune of Rs.11,33,372/-. But, only contention is that the Cheques which were collected as security were misused.

¶154

Having taken note of clear admission on the part of P.W.1 that in terms of Ex.P7, amount of Rs.8,39,122/- was

¶155

17 -

¶156

HC-KAR

¶157

NC: 2026:KHC:36102 CRL.RP No. 1002 of 2021 C/W CRL.RP No. 983 of 2021 CRL.RP No. 986 of 2021 AND 2 OTHERS

¶158

CNR: KAHC010292892021

¶159

confirmed as the outstanding balance payable by the complainant to the accused and also there is an admission with regard to Exs.P8 to P13 with regard to the earlier correspondence, the very contention of the counsel cannot be accepted that Trial Court and the First Appellate Court committed an error. No doubt, an observation is made that B- report was not challenged, but counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the same is challenged before the Court and the same is pending for consideration and the same is only an additional ground urged while arguing the matter before the Trail Court. But, the fact is that when issuance of Cheques and signature available in the Cheques is not disputed and in terms of Ex.P7, the balance amount payable by the accused to the tune of Rs.8,39,122/which is the amount in all the cases is not disputed, I do not find any error on the part of Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The amount of fine imposed is only total Rs.9,70,000/as against Rs.8,39,122/- and with regard to imposing of fine also, I do not find any error and the same is proportionate to the amount mentioned and the same commensurate with the

¶160