Karnataka High Court
CRL.RP/1104/2026 of M/S. M. M. STEEL Vs M/S. S. K. STEELS TECH PVT. LTD., on 14 July 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:35882 CRL.RP No. 1104 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1104 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. M/S. M.M. STEEL NO.89/130, THANISANDRA MAIN ROAD, DR.
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1104 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
1.
M/S. M.M. STEEL
NO.89/130,
THANISANDRA MAIN ROAD,
DR. SHIVARAMAKARANTH NAGAR POST
NAGAWARA, BENGALURU-560 077
REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR
MR. NAYAZ.
2.
MR. SYED NAYAZ
PROPRIETOR/AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
FOR M/S.M.M.STEEL
NO.89/130, THANISANDRA MAIN ROAD
NAGAWARA,
DR. SHIVARAMAKARANTH NAGAR
BENGALURU-560 077.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. GAJANAN HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
M/S. S.K. STEELS TECH PVT. LTD.,
REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO.47,48,49, KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA,
SOMPURA HOBLI, DABASPET,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
BENGALURU-562 111.
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
CORPORATE OFFICE AT
NO.162/A/34/2, 3RD MAIN
INDUSTRIAL AREA
RAJAJINAGAR
BENGALURU-560 010.
BY ITS DIRECTOR,
MR. K.GEORGE PRABHU
S/O. S. KULADI SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
REP BY HIS SPA HOLDER
MR.N. SUBHASH
S/O.M.NATARAJ
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
SALES MANAGER
PLOT NO.47, 48, 49
KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA
SOMPURA HOBLI, DABASPET
NELAMANGALA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
BENGALURU-562 111.
…RESPONDENT
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401(FILED U/S.438
R/W SEC.442 BNSS) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 04.09.2023 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED MAGISTRATE IN THE SAID CASE AND TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 10.04.2026 PASSED BY THE HONBLE LXIII
(CCH-64)
ADDL.
CITY
CIVIL
AND
SESSIONS
JUDGE,
BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.276/2026 AND TO ALLOW THIS
REVISION PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO
ACQUIT THE PETITIONER OF THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 R/W
SECTION 142 OF N.I. ACT IN THE ABOVE CASE.
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
This matter is listed for admission and I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. The factual matrix of case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that both the accused and complainant were having acquaintance with each other. The complainant is a manufacturer of M.S. Squares and M.S. Billets and TMT Bars. The accused is a regular customer of the complainant and complainant supplied the materials to accused under various invoices. Towards payment of the same, the accused issued the Cheques for a sum of Rs.5,32,261/-, Rs.5,33,598/- and Rs.7,09,988/- drawn on ICICI Bank. The complainant had presented those Cheques and Cheques returned with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. Notice was issued, no reply was given and also not complied with demand. Hence, complaint was filed, cognizance was taken and the accused was secured and he did not plead guilty and claims for trial.
HC-KAR
3. Hence, the representative of the complainant is examined before the Trial Court as P.W.1 and marked the documents Exs.P1 to 13 and accused No.2 examined himself as D.W.1, but not marked any documents.
4. The Trial Court taking into note of admission on the part of D.W.1, who categorically admitted transaction with the complainant-company also admitted that he had purchased the material from the complainant-company on credit basis for 15 days and also he had purchased the materials relating to this case on credit basis for 15 days. But, categorically says that due to Covid-19, there was delay in payment. Taking note of this fact into consideration and also other defence was taken that he used to make online payment in respect of the materials supplied to him by the complainant. But, no documents are produced before the Court as against the invoices Ex.P11 to Ex.P13 and he has not produced any documents. The Trial Court having considered this evidence in paragraph Nos.17 and 18, convicted and sentenced the accused.
HC-KAR
5. The same is challenged before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.276/2024. The First Appellate Court also considering the admission on the part of D.W.1 that he was having transaction between the complainant confirmed the order of the Trial Court on re-appreciation of evidence.
6. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioners before this Court is that both the Courts committed an error in considering the material on record. Even though accused was examined as D.W.1, his evidence has not been properly considered. The said contention cannot be accepted for the reason that accused has accepted the transaction between the complainant and also purchase of material, that too on credit basis. But, though contend that he repaid the amount through online payment and the same is not substantiated by placing any document before the Court and the same is considered by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. When the order does not suffer from its legality and correctness, question of entertaining the revision petition does not arise. Hence, no ground is made out to entertain the revision petition.
HC-KAR
Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51