Authority: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru

Order Date: 9 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Petition: Criminal Revision Petition No.435 of 2026 filed by Sri Vignesh Ranganathan, proprietor of M/S. Pooja Diamonds (address: No.658/57 11th Main, 33rd Cross 4th Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru‑560011), seeking to set aside the dismissal order in Criminal Appeal No.60/2025 (filed by LII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, CCH‑53).
  • Respondent: Sri Mohantha Bera, proprietor of Punam Jewellery (address: No.23, 3rd Floor, 12th Cross, Cubbonpet, Bengaluru‑560002).
  • Legal basis: Petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, challenging the conviction and sentence dated 20‑12‑2024 (C.C.No.36431/2021) and the confirmation order dated 12‑12‑2025 (Crl.A.No.60/2025).
  • Factual matrix: Punam Jewellery manufactured gold ornaments on a make‑to‑order basis. The accused placed two orders – 15‑Oct‑2019 for 1,064.16 g of gold worth Rs 40,00,000 and 29‑Jun‑2021 for 552.14 g of gold worth Rs 25,08,000. The accused paid Rs 20,00,000, leaving a balance of Rs 45,08,000.
  • On 14‑Jul‑2021 the parties executed an agreement (Ex.P10) and the accused issued two post‑dated cheques of Rs 20,00,000 each dated 10‑Oct‑2021 and 14‑Oct‑2021. Both cheques were returned marked “account closed”.
  • The complainant served a legal notice demanding payment; the accused neither responded nor paid, leading to the filing of a criminal complaint. The accused was produced before the trial court and did not plead guilty.
  • Trial Court evidence: Complainant examined as PW1; documents Ex.P1‑P11 admitted. Accused examined as DW1 but produced no documents. The court relied on Ex.P8 and Ex.P10, finding a liability of Rs 45,08,000 and convicting the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
  • Appellate Court: Re‑assessed the same evidence, noted the accused’s failure to produce bank statements or receipts, and upheld the trial court’s conviction and sentence.
  • Revision petition arguments: Counsel claimed the agreement was forced and that the courts ignored material facts. The petitioner alleged the courts erred in law and fact.
  • High Court observations: The court noted that the issuance of the cheques and the agreement were not disputed, there was no cross‑examination challenging the agreement’s authenticity, and no evidence was presented to show the accused had settled the balance. The court found no impediment to accepting Ex.P10 and no complaint that it was fabricated. Consequently, the reasoning of the lower courts was deemed correct.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court dismissed the revision petition, affirming the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and upholding the dismissal order of the appellate court.

Topics: Cheque Bounce, Criminal Revision