Bangalore District Court
Ramsarup Lohh Udyog Limited vs Abb Limited, Rep. By Poa Holder E V S … on 23 July, 2025
KABC0A0021132022
IN THE COURT OF LXXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU. (CCH.74)
PRESENT:
Smt. Anitha N.P., B.A.L., L.L.M.,
LXXIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru.
Dated this the 23rd day of July 2025.
Crl. Appeal No.25084/2022
Appellant/ 1. Ramsarup Lohh Udyog Limited,
Accused: A company under the Companies Act
1956, having its Registered Office at
Hasting Chamber, 1st Floor, 7C,
Kiran Shankar Roy Road,
Kolkata - 700 001.
2. Mr. Ashish Jhunjhunwala,
Managing Director, Ramsarup Lohh Udyog
Limited,
Hasting Chamber, 1st Floor & 2nd Floor,
7C, Kiran Shankar Roy Road,
Kolkata - 700 001.
3. Mr. Naveem Gupta
Director, Ramsarup Lohh Udyog Limited,
Hasting Chamber, 1st Floor & 2nd Floor,
7C, Kiran Shankar Roy Road,
Kolkata - 700 001.
4. Mr. Aayush Lohia
2 Crl.A. No.25084/2022
Director, Ramsarup Lohh Udyog Limited,
Hasting Chamber, 1st Floor & 2nd Floor,
7C, Kiran Shankar Roy Road,
Kolkata - 700 001.
(Rep by Sri.C.R.Ragavendra Reddy- Adv.)
V/S
Respondent/ ABB Limited
Complainant: A company under the Companies Act 1956
Having is Registered office at 2nd Floor,
East Wing, Khanija Bhavan,
49 Race Course Road,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
Rep. by its Power of Attorney Holder
E.V.S.Narayana Reddy.
(Rep by Sri.H.M- Adv.)
JUDGMENT
This is an Appeal filed by Accused No.1 to 4 under
Section 374(3) of Cr.P.C., being aggrieved by the Judgment
dated 01/04/2022 passed in C.C. No.54836/2016 on the file of
XXXIV ACMM, Bengaluru, convicting them for an offence
punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act [hereinafter referred to as ‘NI Act‘, for brevity] and
sentencing them to pay fine of Rs.32,25,000/- and in default
of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for five
months. Out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.31,20,000/- is
directed to be paid to the respondent/complainant as
compensation and remaining Rs.5,000/- is ordered to be
remitted towards State expenses.
3 Crl.A. No.25084/2022
2. The parties are referred to their original ranking as
referred in trial court for convenience sake. The appellants
No.1 to 4 are the accused No.1 to 4 and Respondent is the
Complainant before the trial court.
3. Brief facts of the complainant before the trial court
is as under:-
The complainant is the public limited company under
the Companies Act 1956 and it is engaged in the business of
manufacturing, sale and trading of electrical and automation
products. Accused No.1 is a Public limited company, accused
No. 2 is the Managing director and accused No. 3 & 4 are the
directors of Accused No. 1. Accused No. 2 to 4 are incharge
of the day to day management and administration of the
Company. Accused No. 1 through accused No. 2 to 4 placed a
purchase orders dated 23/04/2007 and 27/04/2007 for supply
of 33 KV Switch Board and associated equipment and Static
Var Compensator respectively. Accordingly, the complainant
supplied the goods as per the said purchase order and raised
invoices for the same and it is for a sum of Rs.
118,839,196=99 and submitted the invoices to the accused and
as per the payment terms the accused was to make payment
of the balance amounts and the complainant demanded the
payments for the same. However, the accused committed
4 Crl.A. No.25084/2022default and after repeated demand the accused issued cheques
to the complainant as follows;
Sl.No. Cheque No. Date Amount
1 082201 24/12/2009 1,500,000
2 082202 23/12/2009 1,500,000
3 082203 22/12/2009 1,000,000
4 082206 17/12/2009 910,223
5 082207 18/12/2009 1,500,000
6 082234 21/12/2009 1,500,000
7 082235 25/12/2009 1,500,000
8 082236 28/12/2009 1,500,000
9 082237 30/12/2009 1,500,000
10 082239 31/12/2009 1,569,042
Total 13,979,265
4. The complainant as per the instruction of accused
presented one of the cheque bearing No. 082235 dated
25/12/2009 for Rs. 15,00,000/- before its banker ICICI Bank
Limited, M.G.Road Branch, Bengaluru. However, the said
cheque returned unpaid for the reason “payment stopped”.
Thereafter complainant issued a legal notice dated 29/01/2010
to accused and it was duly served on the accused on
03/02/2010. However the accused failed to make payment.
Hence, the Complainant filed Complaint before the 34 th
ACMM, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.54836/2016.
5 Crl.A. No.25084/2022
5. After taking cognizance of the complaint, summons
has been issued to the Accused. Responding to the summons,
accused appeared before the Trial Court, enlarged on bail,
plea was recorded, Accused have pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
6. That to prove the case of the Complainant, the
Complainant examined its authorized official as PW.1 and this
PW1 in his affidavit filed in the form of Examination in Chief
he has reiterated the averments of the complaint. In support
of his case, he has relied on the documents marked as Ex.P1
to Ex.P13.
7. Thereafter, statement of Accused u/s 313 of Cr.P.C.,
has been recorded and the accused did not choose to lead
evidence and did not produced any documents.
8. After hearing the arguments, the Trial Court passed
the impugned judgment and order dated 01/04/2022
convicting the Accused persons. That highly aggrieved with
the impugned judgment and order, the Accused have filed
present appeal on the following grounds:
1) The impugned Judgment is neither sustainable
in law nor on the facts and circumstances of the
case. The impugned judgment is illegal,
perverse. The respondent company initiated the
6 Crl.A. No.25084/2022complaint against the appellants in PCR No.
8813/2010 and same was registered in C.C.No.
27188/2012 before trial court and as per the
notification of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India, the case was referred back to
jurisdictional court at Kolkata and thereafter
again it is transferred to the trial court at
Bengaluru.Before the court at Kolkata summons
was issued to accused mean while the Hon’ble
Court at Kolkata has permitted the complainant
to amend the complaint and as per the
amendment the complainant company was
supposed to amend its name to ABB India
Limited instead of ABB Limited and appellant
No. 1 company shall be called as “Ramsarup
Lohh Udyog Limited @ M/s. Ramsarup
Industries Limited” vide its order dated
16/02/2015. However, inspite of the order
passed by the 16th MM Court at Kolkata the
complainant has not chosen to carryout the
amendment. The trial court failed to consider
the same.
2) The legal notice was issued on 29/01/2010 is
not in accordance with law. The accused
company name is Unit of Ramsarup Industries
Limited but in the PCR name of Unit of
Ramsarup Industries Limited is not mentioned as
accused No. 1, and the trial court failed to
consider the same.
7 Crl.A. No.25084/2022
3) There is a dispute in respect of purchase of
material from complainant in respect of
purchase order Sl. No. 13. PW1 during the
course of cross-examination at para 10 has
expressed that as per the Ex.P9 clause 13 that
the dispute shall be referred before the
Arbitration. Hence the claim of the complainant
is not legally recoverable debt.
4) The admission of PW1 that, he cannot say in
which receipt this cheque was raised, was not
considered by the trial court. The trial court
also not considered various admissions of PW1
and contradictions in the evidence of PW1.
5) The complainant has not produced any
documents to show that, the appellants are
liable to pay amount to respondent.
6) The trial court has convicted the accused for
more than the double amount of the cheque
and it is against to the law and facts.
7) Ex.P12 which was executed by Mr. Gururaj in
favour of PW1 was only for the period of 1
year from the date of execution. The alleged
power of attorney was executed on 29/01/2018
which is lapsed on 28/01/2019 and inspite of
expiry of Ex.P12 the witness PW1 continued to
represent the company as attorney holder. The
same was not considered by the trial court.
8 Crl.A. No.25084/2022
8) The cheque bears name as Ramsarup LohhUdyog
(a unit of Ramsarup Industries Limited) and not
address shown at the cause title. Ex.P3 notice
does not show the name of accused company as
shown in Ex.P1 cheque and hence the notice
alleged to have been issued at Ex.P3 is
incomplete in the eye of law.
9) The respondent company had sent a notice
dated 11/03/2010 to the appellant company
calling upon them to clarify regarding the stop
payment instruction and so also letter on
07/04/2010 and the same was admitted by PW1
but the said documents were not produced.
10) The complainant not produced any resolution
alleged to have been passed by it prior to filing
of the complaint. PW1 has no knowledge about
the complete transaction and proceedings
pending before NCLT at Kolkata personally.
11) The admission of PW1 that there is change of
handwriting at Ex.P1 cheque and he has no
knowledge that who has done the same is not
considered by the trial court. Accordingly, the
impugned judgment and order of conviction is
liable to be set aside by the intervention of this
Court and accordingly prays to allow the
appeal.
9. After service of notice, the Respondent appeared
through his counsel. Records secured from trial court.
9 Crl.A. No.25084/2022
10. Heard both sides. Perused the entire Trial Court
records, including the impugned judgment.
11. Upon hearing, the following points arise for
determination:-
1. Does the Appellant proves that the cheque in
question was not issued towards any legally
enforceable debt?
2. Does the Appellant proves that PW1 has no
competency to depose on behalf of the
complainant?
3. Whether the judgment of conviction passed by
the Trial Court calls for interference by the
hands of this court?
4. What Order?12. My findings to above
points are as under:-
Point No.1: In the Negative
Point No.2: In the Negative
Point No.3: In the Partly Affirmative
Point No.4: As per the final order,
for the following:-
R E A S O N S
13. POINT No.1 & 2: Since both these points are inter-
linked with each other, I proceed to discuss together, in order
to avoid repetition of facts and evidence.
10 Crl.A. No.25084/2022
The complainant is the public limited company engaged
in the business of manufacturing, sale and trading of electrical
and automation products. Accused No.1 is a Public limited
company, accused No. 2 is the Managing director and accused
No. 3 & 4 are the directors of Accused No. 1. Accused No. 2
to 4 are incharge of the day to day management and
administration of the Company. Accused No. 1 through
accused No. 2 to 4 placed a purchase orders dated 23/04/2007
and 27/04/2007 for supply of 33 KV Switch Board and
associated equipment and Static Var Compensator respectively.
Accordingly, the complainant supplied the goods and raised
invoices for a sum of Rs. 118,839,196.99 and submitted the
invoices to the accused and as per the payment terms the
accused was to make payment of the balance amounts and the
complainant demanded the payments for the same. However,
the accused committed default in making the payment towards
the outstanding amount for the supplies made by the
complainant. However, after repeated demand the accused
issued various cheques of different dates to the complainant.
The complainant as per the instruction of accused presented
one of the cheque bearing No. 082236 dated 28/12/2009 for
Rs. 15,00,000/- through its banker, but the said cheque
returned unpaid for the reason “payment stopped”. Thereafter
complainant issued a notice dated 29/01/2010 and it was duly
11 Crl.A. No.25084/2022
served on the accused on 03/02/2010. The accused have failed
to make payment of the said sum of Rs. 15,00,000/-inspite of
receiving notice.
14. The complainant so as to prove his case got
examined his power of attorney holder as PW1 before the trial
court and he has produced and got marked in all 13
documents as per Ex.P1 to 13. Ex.P1 is the cheque, Ex.P2 is
the bank endorsement, Ex.P3 is the office copy of legal notice
dated 27/10/2018, Ex.P4 is postal receipt, Ex.P5 to 8 are the
postal acknowledgment, Ex.P9 & 10 are the purchase voucher,
Ex.P11 is the 12 receipts and Ex.P12 is the power of attorney,
Ex.P13 is the board resolution.
15. On the contrary the accused except cross-examining
PW1 not produced any document and not lead evidence. The
careful study of the entire records shows that, the accused not
denied the Ex.P1 cheque is pertains to accused No. 1 and not
denied the signature on Ex.P1. Under the above circumstances,
there is an initial presumption in favour of the Complainant
under Section 139 & 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act and the
burden is on the Accused to rebut the said presumption by
taking appropriate defense on the principles of preponderance
of probabilities.
12 Crl.A. No.25084/2022
16. At this stage, it is necessary to refer a ruling of
Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2019 (3) KCCR 2473 (SC)
(Basalingappa V/s Mudibasappa). The Hon’ble Apex Court
while considering several earlier rulings on the offence
U/Sec.138 of NI Act and also on the presumption U/Sec.118
and 139 of NI Act, at Para 23 was pleased to observe as
follows:
23. We having noticed the ratio laid down by
this Court in above cases on Sections 118(a) and 139,
we now summarise the principles enumerated by this
Court in following manner:-
(i) Once the execution of cheque is admitted
Section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that
the cheque was for the discharge of any debt or other
liability.
(ii) The presumption under Section 139 is a
rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the
accused to raise the probable defence. The standard
of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of
preponderance of probabilities.
(iii) To rebut the presumption, it is open for the
accused to rely on evidence led by him or accused
can also rely on the materials submitted by the
Complainant in order to raise a probable defence.
Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be
drawn not only from the materials brought on record
by the parties but also by reference to the
circumstances upon which they rely.
(iv) That it is not necessary for the accused to
come in the witness box in support of his defence,
13 Crl.A. No.25084/2022
Sec.139 imposed an evidentiary burden and not a
persuasive burden.
(v) It is not necessary for the accused to come
in the witness box to support his defence.
17. Keeping in mind the broad principles laid down in
the above case if the case on hand is looked into it is the
specific defence of the accused that PW1 has no authority to
depose on behalf of complainant and he has no knowledge of
the transaction, there is no legally recoverable debt from the
accused to the complainant. The notice issued by the
complainant to the accused is not in accordance with law. The
complainant not carried out amendment as per the order of
the trial court at kolkata, Ex.P12 is not properly construed by
the trial court. There is change in the handwriting on the
Ex.P1 cheque.
18. In the case on hand PW1 is E.V.S.Narayana Reddy
and he deposed that he is authorized signatory of the
complainant company. In this regard he has relied upon power
of attorney marked at Ex.P12 and Board resolution marked at
Ex.P13. On perusal of Ex.12 the same shows this PW1 was
authorized to do all acts in connection with the Civil and
Criminal cases against accused company Ramsarup Lohh
Udyog Limited / Ramsarup Industries Limited.
14 Crl.A. No.25084/2022
19. On perusal of Ex.P13 the same shows that, it is
extract from the minutes of the 2/2019 meeting of the Board
of Director of ABB India Limited held on 13/02/2019. The first
and foremost ground raised by the accused is that, Ex.P12 was
executed by one Gururaj on 29/01/2018 in favour of PW1 and
it was only for a period of 1 year which is lapsed on
28/01/2019. Hence the same is invalid. Inspite of expiry of
Ex.P12 witness PW1 continued to represent the company as
attorney holder and also tendered for further cross-
examination and the said power of attorney holder had no
right to depose for the complainant.
20. At this stage it is necessary to go through last para
of Ex.P12 SPA and it shows that, the executant B.Gururaj who
is a Company Secretary as well as Deputy General Counsel of
ABB India Limited i.e., complainant undertook to ratify and
confirm acts lawfully done or cause to be done by the Power
of attorney. The said power of Attorney was signed before
person by name B.Chitra, Advocate and Notary.
21. On perusal of Ex.P13 the Board resolution dated 13-
02-2019 this PW1 was given with authorization to represent
the complainant in 10 criminal cases which are initiated
against Ramsarup Lohh Udyog Limited and its directors for
15 Crl.A. No.25084/2022
dishonor of cheques and it also resolved that, company ratifies
all action taken by the PW1 in the said criminal cases.
22. Hence, by careful reading of Ex.P12 and 13 coupled
with ocular evidence of PW1 it clearly goes to show that, this
PW1 is duly authorized to institute criminal cases against
accused and his actions in respect of said criminal cases were
ratified by the complainant. Hence, the argument of the
accused that PW1 has no power to depose on behalf of the
complainant company and the GPA is not valid in the eye of
law cannot be accepted.
23. It is one more ground of the appeal that the
respondent has not carried out amendment as per the order of
the Court at Kolkata. On perusal of the trial court records, the
accused has not sought for any direction to the complainant to
make amendment in this regard in the relevant records at
relevant point of time. The accused kept silent for all purpose
and went on watching the proceedings before the trial court
and now has come up with this ground in this appeal. The
same shows that, the accused was not vigilant. Even otherwise
if the records are carefully perused the cheque Ex.P1 was
issued to the name ABB Ltd., i.e., complainant company. The
name of the complainant company is changed subsequently.
16 Crl.A. No.25084/2022
That does not in anyway takes away the right of the
complainant under the Ex.P1 cheque.
24. It is one more argument of the accused that, the
complainant has issued legal notice but the same is not in
accordance with law. The name of the accused is Ramsarup
Lohh Udyog Limited (unit of Ramsarup Industries Ltd).
However, the legal notice is addressed to Ramsarup Lohh
Udyog Limited. It is necessary to note that, during the course
of cross-examination when the same was suggested to PW1 he
deposed that, in the legal notice unit of Ramsarup Industries
Limited is not mentioned. On perusal of Ex.P3 the notice was
issued to Ramsarup Lohh Udyog Limited. It is relevant to note
here that Ex.P9 is purchase order of the accused and it is not
disputed by the accused. It is suggested by the learned counsel
for the accused that, Ex.P9 is purchase order and there are
certain conditions in Ex.P9. On perusal of said Ex.P9 it is
letter of Ramsarup Lohh Udyog Limited i.e., the accused No.
1 the same is addressed to ABB limited on 23/04/2007. On
behalf of the said Ramsarup Lohh Udyog Limited, its Head
(electrical and instrumentation) signed the said document.
Even Ex.P10 is also letter of Ramsarup Lohh Udyog Limited
and it is dated 27/04/2007. The customer billed in Ex.P11 is
Ramsarup Lohh Udyog Limited. It is the argument of the
17 Crl.A. No.25084/2022
accused that, in the Ex.P1 cheque it is mentioned that, it is
Ramsarup Lohh Udyog Limited(Unit of Ramsarup Industries
Limited) and in the Notice the name of the accused is not
properly mentioned.
25. However, it is not in dispute that, this Ramsarup
Lohh Udyog Limited, is unit of Ramsarup Industries Limited
and the billing customer of Ex.P11 is Ramsarup Lohh Udyog
Limited only. Even the correspondence letter Ex.P9 & 10
shows it is Ramsarup Lohh Udyog Limited has done the said
correspondence with the complainant. Ramsarup Lohh Udyog
may be unit of Ramsarup industries Limited but it is not
disputed that, the billing customer is Ramsarup Lohh Udyog
only and it had issued the Ex.P1 cheque to the complainant.
It is also necessary to note that, the accused not denied the
issuance of Ex.P1 cheque to the complainant as a customer
and the accused also not denied the signature on Ex.P1.
26. In the case on hand on perusal of the Ex.P4 the
postal receipts the same was taken to the address of the
accused. The postal acknowledgment shows that, the notice
was duly served on the accused No. 1 to 4. The
acknowledgments bears the seal of accused. Ex.P9 and 10 the
letters of accused shows that, They have placed purchase
order before the complainant ABB Limited and the contract
18 Crl.A. No.25084/2022
value was Rs. 1,67,50,000/- and Rs. 10.00 crores respectively.
On the basis of said purchase order the complainant supplied
goods as per invoices at Ex.P11 which are dated 20/12/2006,
20/06/2007, 24/05/2007, 06/06/2007, 30/04/2008, 28/03/2008,
28/04/2008, 25/04/2008, 28/03/2008, 25/06/2008, 26/08/2008,
08/02/2008. The receiving of the goods as per the above
invoices is also not disputed by the accused.
27. On careful perusal of the invoices at Ex.P11 it shows
that, the customer billed is Ramsarup Lohh Udyog Limited
Sahachak Rakha Jungle PO, Tata metalic Road, Karagpur,
India. The purchase order as per Ex.P9 and 10 is placed by
Ramsarup Lohh Udyog Limited, 7(c), Kiran Shankar Roy Road,
Hastings Chambers, 2nd Floor, Kolkata. As per Ex.P9 and 10
the consignee details is also provided. That apart the address
of correspondence is also provided. Accordingly the notice is
issued to the address of the accused Ramsarup Lohh Udyog
Limited. Hence the argument of the accused that, the notice is
not proper cannot be accepted. The said notice is duly served
on accused.
28. The accused having received the notice have not
given any reply. The accused had received the materials from
the complainant have not paid the amount. There was no
complaint that the goods are not delivered or the goods
19 Crl.A. No.25084/2022
delivered was not of the standard prescribed or substandard.
No doubt, there is an Arbitration clause in Ex.P9 and 10.
However, the cheque is issued towards payment of the goods
delivered to the accused. In respect of the goods received the
accused not made payment. It is not the case of the accused
that he was not served with any goods. For the goods
received the accused is having liability to make payment. The
same was not done. According to pay the legally recoverable
amount the accused has issued the cheque to the complainant.
On presentation of cheque the same returned as payment
stopped. The accused though contended that as there was
violation of conditions of purchase order he given instructions
to stop payment but no evidence is produced to establish that
there was violation of purchase order Ex.P9 or Ex.P10 by the
complainant. Hence the accused failed to raise probable
defence and failed to prove the defence taken by them.
Accordingly the accused failed to prove his defence on the
principles of preponderance of probabilities and failed to rebut
the presumption available in favour of the complainant.
Hence, I answered Point No.1 & 2 in the Negative.
29. Point No.3: It is the case of the appellant/accused
that the impugned judgment and order of the Trial Court in
C.C.No.54836/2016, dated 01/04/2022 is perverse, illegal,
20 Crl.A. No.25084/2022
irregular, capricious and contrary to the facts and material
placed before it. Therefore, it is required to be set-aside by
intervention of this court to meet the ends of justice. As I
have already discussed under Point No.1 & 2 that the
Complainant has categorically proved his contention that Ex.P1
cheque belongs to Accused, it has been issued in his favour to
discharge the legally recoverable debt. Accordingly, to clear
the said legally enforceable debt the Accused has issued
cheque under Ex.P1 to discharge the said amount, same was
dishonored with an endorsement as ‘Payment stopped’. Even
thereafter, accused have not made efforts to pay the cheque
amount. Therefore, the said act and conduct of Accused is
clearly goes to show that he has committed the offence
punishable u/s. 138 of NI Act. Though there is provision to
rebut the presumption available u/s 138 of NI Act, the
Accused have miserably failed to make out all their defence.
Therefore, the Complainant has proved that Accused have
committed the offence punishable u/s 138 of NI Act. No
reason to deny the same. The Appellant/Accused have
miserably failed to make out grounds of appeal. The Trial
Court has taken into consideration the evidence placed before
it and appreciated the facts and evidence. The Trial Court by
complying the correct proposition of law in the light of
principles laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court as well as
21 Crl.A. No.25084/2022
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, has rightly come to
conclusion and given its conclusion holding that the Accused
have committed the offence punishable u/s. 138 of NI Act.
The reasoning assigned by the Trial Court is based on sound
principles of law. It does not requires any intervention. No
reason to deny the same.
30. At this stage it is necessary to go through Sec. 138
of NI Act and it reads as follows: 138. Dishonour of cheque for
insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account.–
Where any cheque drawn by a person on an
account maintained by him with a banker for
payment of any amount of money to another
person from out of that account for the
discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or
other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid,
either because of the amount of money standing
to the credit of that account is insufficient to
honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount
arranged to be paid from that account by an
agreement made with that bank, such person
shall be deemed to have committed an offence
and shall, without prejudice to any other
provisions of this Act, be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may be extended
to two years, or with fine which may extend to
twice the amount of the cheque, or with both:
Provided that nothing contained in this section
shall apply unless–
22 Crl.A. No.25084/2022
(a)the cheque has been presented to the bank
within a period of six months from the date on
which it is drawn or within the period of its
validity, whichever is earlier;
(b)the payee or the holder in due course of the
cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand
for the payment of the said amount of money
by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the
cheque, [within thirty days of the receipt of information
by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque
as unpaid; and
(c)the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment
of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case
may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within
fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.
Explanation.–For the purposes of this section, “debt or
other liability” means a legally enforceable debt or other
liability.]
31. Hence from the reading of Sec.138 it is clear that, if
the accused is proved guilty of the offence punishable under
Section 138 of NI Act, he shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may be extend to two year, or
with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the
cheque or with both. On perusal of the impugned judgment,
the learned trial judge convicted the accused persons and
sentenced them to pay fine of Rs.32,25,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for five
months. Out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.31,20,000/- is
directed to be paid to the respondent/complainant as
23 Crl.A. No.25084/2022
compensation and remaining Rs.5,000/- is ordered to be
remitted towards State expenses. However the Ex.P1 cheque is
issued by the accused for a sum of Rs.15 lakh and twice the
amount of the said cheque comes to Rs.30 lakhs only. Hence
the conviction of accused persons by the trial court for more
than twice amount of cheque is not proper. The same is not
in accordance with punishment prescribed in the Sec. 138 of
NI Act and the said fine amount only requires to be modified.
In view of the discussion on point No.1 and 2 the accused
have miscerably failed to make out of their defence. Hence,
the accused No. 1 to 4 are liable to pay fine of Rs.30,00,000/-
and the remaining order of the learned trial judge not requires
any intervention and the accused not made out any grounds
to interfere in the remaining portion of the operative portion
of the impugned judgment. Accordingly to that extent the
impugned judgment of conviction is requires to be modified.
Accordingly I answer point No. 3 in partly affirmative.
32. POINT No.4: For the various reasons stated in the
point Nos.1 to 3 and findings given on them by me, I proceed
to pass the following:-
24 Crl.A. No.25084/2022
O R D E R
Appeal filed by the appellant/accused
under section 374(3) of Cr.P.C., is hereby partly
Allowed in respect of imposing fine on accused
and the impugned judgment and order of
conviction passed by trial court in CC
No.54836/2016 dated 01/04/2022 in respect of
imprisonment and compensation is hereby
confirmed.
Consequently, the impugned judgment and
order of conviction passed by trial court in CC
No.54836/2016 against the appellant/accused
dated 01/04/2022 is hereby modified in respect
of fine amount as follows:
The accused No. 1 to 4 are sentenced to
pay fine of Rs. 30,00,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment
for five months. Out of the fine amount, a sum
of Rs.29,95,000/- is directed to be paid to the
respondent/complainant as compensation and
remaining Rs.5,000/- is ordered to be remitted
towards State expenses.
25 Crl.A. No.25084/2022
Remit the trial court records with copy of
this judgment.
– – –
(Dictated to the Stenographer, after computerization, corrected
and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 23rd day of
July, 2025)
Digitally signed by
ANITHA
ANITHA NANJANAGUDU
NANJANAGUDU PARASHIVAMURTHY
PARASHIVAMURTHY
Date: 2025.07.28
17:42:20 +0530(Anitha N.P.)
rd
73 Addl. CC & SJ, M.H.Unit,
Bengaluru. (CCH-74)