CRL.RP/242/2025 of SIDVIN EDUCATION SOCIETY Vs M/S PRAKASH PAPER AGENCIES on 14 July 2026

ORDER

OF IMPUGNED

JUDGMENT

IN CRL.APPL.NO.530/2021, BY A JUDGMENT DATED 12.12.2024 BY THE HONBLE LVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-59) AT BENGALURU CITY.

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

ORAL ORDER

This matter is listed for admission.

2. Heard the learned counsel for revision petitioners and the learned counsel for respondent.

3. The factual matrix of the case of complainant before the trial Court that the complainant is the

HC-KAR

manufacturer of customized school note books, printed stationers, answer sheets and other similar products and accused No.2 is running the school in the name of St.Philomena’s English High School and accused have been placing orders for different kinds of customized note books and other stationeries to the complainant. Further, during beginning of 2018, the accused No.2 placed orders for supply of stationeries i.e., different kinds of customized note books etc., accordingly, the complainant manufactured the note books and other materials as per the specifications given by the accused and during the month of April 2018 the same has been supplied to the accused.

4. Further, the case of complainant is that the towards the supply of books and other materials, the accused are totally liable to pay sum of Rs.9,75,865/-, out of which accused paid a sum of Rs.2,99,916/- to the complainant and for the balance amount of Rs.6,79,949/-,

HC-KAR

accused issued a Cheque for a sum of Rs.6,79,949/-. The complainant presented the Cheque for encashment but the same is returned with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. Thereafter, the complainant issued legal notice to the accused and the same was served to the accused on 31.01.2019, but no reply is given. Hence, the complainant filed the complaint for the offence punishable under Section of Negotiable Instruments Act,

(hereinafter referred to as ‘N.I. Act’ for short). The cognizance was taken and the accused was secured. He pleaded not guilty and claims the trial.

5. The complainant in order to prove the case, the proprietor of the complainant agencies has examined as P.W.1 and got marked 17 documents i.e., Exs.P1 to P29. The accused was also subjected to recording of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. but not led any defence evidence, particularly with regard to the evidence of P.W.1, issuance of Cheque and also legal notice at Ex.P3

HC-KAR

and nothing is elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 except the defence taken is that he has issued the subject matter of Cheque for the purpose of security and the complainant has misused the same and with regard to this, the trial Court has opined that if at all the accused had not issued the Cheque to the complainant for discharging his legally enforceable debt, then definitely he would have initiated legal proceedings like lodging of police complaint or issuing legal notice against the complainant or even he could instruct his banker to stop the payment and the accused has not made any efforts to do so. As such, the trial Court has convicted and sentence the accused for the aforesaid offence and the same is challenged by the accused in Crl.A.No.530/2021 before the appellate Court. The appellate Court also reassessed both oral as well as documentary evidence, confirms the order of trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioners are before this Court in this revision.

HC-KAR

6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners would contend that both the Courts have erred in convicting and sentence the accused for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act and both the Courts have failed to appreciate the material on record and requires interference by this Court.

7. Learned counsel for respondent would contend that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentence the accused and the appellate Court confirms the same and hence, no interference is required.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and learned counsel for respondent and also having perused the material on record, the trial Court particularly in paragraph No.25 taken note of the fact that the complainant succeeded in drawing the statutory presumption in his favour and on basis of the material evidence placed before the Court, it clearly established that the accused had issued Ex.P1-Cheque for an amount

HC-KAR

of Rs.6,79,949/- to the complainant. Even in paragraph No.26 of the judgment, it has taken note of the fact that the accused fails to repay the amount nearly about 2 years. It is noted that no reply was given by the accused to the legal notice. It is also pertinent to note that with regard to supply of books is concerned, Exs.P10 to P15 and Exs.P18 to P23 are marked as tax invoices and the counter receipts as Exs.P26 to 29. When such material are placed before this Court, no case is made out by the accused to prove his case and the issuance of Cheque is not in dispute and no reply was given. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit this revision and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27