IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE KARNATAKA AT, BANGALORE

(Memorandum of Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 R/w

401 of Code of Criminal Procedure).

IN THE COURT OF THE 25th Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Bengaluru City
C.C.No. 26920/2015

IN THE COURT OF THE LV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,

BANGALORE CITY (CCH-56)

Crl. A. No.1561/2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT. BANGALORE

Crl.Rev.Pet. 2022

Rank of the parties

Lower Court/ Sessions Court/High Court
Between
Sri. M/S MAHALAKSHMI SEEDS,
MAINBAZAAR MAIN ROAD,
OPP:VYASYA BANK LIMITED
HAGARI BOMMANAHALLI
BELLARY DISTRICT-583 212

Mr.RAKESH
AGED ABOUT 45 Years
PROPRIETOR
M/s M/S MAHALAKSHMI SEEDS,
MAINBAZAAR MAIN ROAD,
OPP:VYASYA BANK LIMITED
HAGARI BOMMANAHALLI
BELLARY DISTRICT-583 212 –Accused /Appellant/Petitioner

And
M/S METAHELIX LIFE SCIENCES LTD
Plot No.3, KIADB 4th Phase,
BOMMASANDRA
RESIDING AT NO. EWS 681,
2ND FLOOR BENGALURU-560099
REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY
HOLDER AND MANGER,
COMMERCIAL SRI N.SRIDHAR --Complainant/Respondent/
Respondent
The Petitioner herein submits as hereunder:-

I. The addresses of the parties hereto for service of notices and

others process from this Hon'ble court are as stated in the cause
title. The petitioner is represented by B.SIDDESAWARA &
CHANDAN B.K., Advocates, No.1/9, Jinkaplaza, 3rd Floor, Office
No.2, 6th Cross, Near Kanishka Hotel, Gandhinagar, Bangaluru-
560009.

II. The facts giving raise to above Revision and the grounds
thereon are as follows:

FACTS OF THE CASE

1) That the respondent has filed a private complaint under

section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the
petitioner /accused for an offence punishable under section
138 of Negotiable Instrument Act in C.C. No. 26920/2015 on
the alleged ground that they had issued a cheque for Rs.
1,55,805/- only and the same was dishonoured with an
endorsement ACCOUNT CLOSED in the account of the
petitioner when it was presented.

2) The brief facts of the case of the respondent is that M/s

Dhanya Seeds is a company incorporated under the
provisions of Companies Act 1956. That company is merged
and amalgamated with M/s Metahelix Life Sciences Limited
which is situated at Plot No 3 KIADB 4 th Bommasandra,
Bengaluru 99 M/S No.3, KIADB 4 Phara Dhanya Seeds
Limited was engaged in the business of production,
distribution and marketing of Hybrid seeds. The accused had
placed orders for supply of hybrid seeds. Accordingly hybrid
seeds were supplied to the accused. As per the statement of
 accounts maintained, the accused had to pay a sum of
Rs.1,55,805-45 to M/s Dhanya Seeds Limited. To discharge
the aforesaid liability the accused had issued cheque bearing
No. 589349 dated 10.08.2015 for Rs.1,55,805/-. When the
said cheque was presented to Bank for encashment, it was
dishonoured for the reason 'Account Closed'. Even after
service of demand notice the accused has not paid the
amount and thereby committed the aforesaid offence. Hence,
the complainant filed the aforesaid complaint. The trial court
took cognizance of the offence against the accused and after
recording sworn statement of the complainant issued process
to the accused.

3) The accused appeared before the trial court and was released
on bail. The plea of the accused was also recorded and the
case of the accused was one of total denial and claimed for
trial.
4) In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the
accused, the authorized person of the complainant company
got himself examined as PW 1 and got marked 182
documents as Ex.P1 to P182. The statement of the accused
was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. to enable him to
answer the incriminating materials available against him in
the evidence of the complainant. The accused denied all the
incriminating materials and did not choose to lead defense
evidence. Then the case was posted for arguments.

5) The trial court heard the augments of both sides and after
considering oral and documentary evidence came to the
conclusion that the complainant has proved the guilt of the
 accused and consequently convicted the accused for the
aforesaid offence.

6) Being aggrieved by the judgment and sentence by the trial

Court, the Accused has filed an appeal in Crl. A. No.
1561/2019 before the LV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY (CCH-56). The First Appellate
Court also confirmed the judgment and sentence of the trial
court.

7) Aggrieved by the said judgment and sentence dated 24-06-

2019 and 28-11-2022 passed by the Trial Court and First
Appellate Court in C.C. No.26920/2015 and Crl. A. No.
1561/2019, the petitioner prefers this Revision petition for the
following among other grounds.

GROUNDS

1. The order of the learned sessions judge is bad in law

and material placed on record, the order passed by the
Learned Session Judge is improper and illegal and the same
is liable to be set aside.

2. That court below erred in not following the procedure

known to law.

3. The trial court has been misdirected by the respondent

and came to the conclusion that the petitioner has committed
an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument
Act. The trial court has not considered that consideration in
as much as the fact that there was no enforceable debt and
that the petitioner never issued the cheque in question to the
 respondent for the commission of the cheque. Therefore the
dishonour of the cheque does not attract any penalty under
section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

4. The trial court has failed to appreciate irregularities and

divergent facts available in the documentary proof provided
by the respondent in support of his case. The trial court has
committed a grave error in acceptance and acting upon the
evidenciary proof of the respondent which is not admissible
under eye of law.

5. The trial court has erred in considering the deposition

in cross-examination of the PW-1 as well as not considering
the deposition of the accused, which was noted in the appeal
but same was not appreciated by the learned session Judge.

6. The trial court has not taken into consideration of the

petitioner’s defence that, the complainant/respondent is
known to the petitioner as he was doing finance business
since 2014. On 01.03.2015 the petitioner had availed a loan
of Rs.1,00,000/- from the respondent for the same he had
given a blank signed cheque and also signed on a blank
thousand rupees stamp paper for security purposes. After the
clearance of the loan, the petitioner asked for the stamp
paper and cheque but the respondent told him it was
misplaced and he would search for the same, relying on their
friendship petitioner took the matter lightly. The respondent
forged the stamp paper and converted it into an agreement to
sell, which was clearly shown in the cross-examination of the
respondent. The impugned cheque and stamp paper are given
as security to the loan amount which was cleared, the
 respondent has misused what was categorically stated in the
evidence, which the trial court did not appreciate and
convicted the petitioner by passing the impugned judgment.
Whereas the First appellant court had stated that this is not
sufficient to dislodge the legal presumptions and convicted
the Petitioner by confirming the order of the trial court.

7. That the trial erred in considering prime dispute of

existence of legal debts between the respondent and
appellants and issuance of cheques to discharge the legally
recoverable debts, the complaint filed by the respondent was
not maintainable on the above-said ground.

8. Though there are number of discrepancies and contrary

statements in the case, without giving any proper reasons,
the judgment are made by both the courts below and hence
the same is against law and all probabilities of the case.
Therefore on this ground alone for impugned judgment is
liable to be set aside.

9. That the Trail court has erred in taking cognizance and has
exceeded by exercising its jurisdiction arbitrarily in punishing
the petitioner wrongfully.

10. That the First Appellate court also erred in not

appreciating the facts pleaded and the grounds urged in the
appeal while coming to the conclusion that the petitioner has
committed an offence punishable under section 138 of the
Negotiable instruments Act by confirming the judgment and
sentence dated 24.06.2019 passed by the trial court.
 11. The First Appellant Court had ignored the fact that the
trial court has failed to appreciate irregularities and divergent
facts available in the documentary proof provided by the
respondent in support of his case. The trial court has
committed a grave error in acceptance and acting upon the
evidentiary proof of the respondent which is not admissible
under the eye of law.

12. Even otherwise, the impugned judgment and sentence

of the courts below suffers from multiple infirmities both in
law and on facts.

13. The Petitioners crave leave of this Hon’ble Court to urge

any additional grounds at the time of arguments.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, the petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court be
pleased to set aside the order dated 28-11-2019 passed by the LV
ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY (CCH-
56) in Crl. A. No. 1561/2019, confirming the judgment and
sentence dated 24-06-2019 passed by the court of the 25 th
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Bangalore in C.C. No.
26920/2015 by allowing the above Revision Petition, in the interest
of justice.

Place: Bangalore
Date: 25.08.2022 Advocate for Petitioner
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT. BANGALORE

IA No.
In
Crl.Rev.Pet. 2022

Rank of the parties

Lower Court/ Sessions Court/High Court
Between
Sri. M/S MAHALAKSHMI SEEDS,
MAINBAZAAR MAIN ROAD,
OPP:VYASYA BANK LIMITED
HAGARI BOMMANAHALLI
BELLARY DISTRICT-583 212

Mr.RAKESH
AGED ABOUT 45 Years
PROPRIETOR
M/s M/S MAHALAKSHMI SEEDS,
MAINBAZAAR MAIN ROAD,
OPP:VYASYA BANK LIMITED
HAGARI BOMMANAHALLI
BELLARY DISTRICT-583 212 –Accused /Appellant/Petitioner

And
M/S METAHELIX LIFE SCIENCES LTD
Plot No.3, KIADB 4th Phase,
BOMMASANDRA
RESIDING AT NO. EWS 681,
2ND FLOOR BENGALURU-560099
REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY
HOLDER AND MANGER,
COMMERCIAL SRI N.SRIDHAR --Complainant/Respondent/
Respondent

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 397(3) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE

For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the

petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to set aside the
order dated 28-11-2019 passed by the LV ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY (CCH-56) in Crl. A. No.
1561/2019, confirming the judgment and sentence dated 24-06-
2019 passed by the court of the 25th Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, at Bangalore in C.C. No. 26920/2015 by allowing the
above Revision Petition, in the interest of justice.

Bangalore
Date: 25.08.2022 Advocate for Petitioner
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

IA No.
In
Crl.Rev.Pet. 2022

Rank of the parties

Lower Court/ Sessions Court/High Court
Between
Sri. M/S MAHALAKSHMI SEEDS –Accused /Appellant/Petitioner

And
M/S METAHELIX LIFE SCIENCES LTD --Complainant/Respondent/
Respondent
AFFIDAVIT
I, V. Mudduraj, S/o. Late Chikkannappa, Aged about 51 years,
R/at. No.22, 7th Cross, Kurubarahalli, Shankaramatha Extension,
Bangalore-560086, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as
follows:-

1. I am petitioner herein and am fully conversant with the facts

deposing hereto.

2. I submit that, the respondent has filed a private complaint against

me for an offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument
Acts. The Trial court without affording sufficient and reasonable
opportunity to me has passed judgment and sentence convicting me for
the alleged offence. Aggrieved by the said judgment, I have preferred an
appeal before the LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE CITY (CCH-65), at Bangalore in Crl. A. No.5/2020. The
First Appellate Court also confirmed the judgment and sentenced of the
Trial court.

3. I submit that, I have got a fair chance to succeed in the above

revision petition. The claim made by the respondent against me is false
and baseless.
4. I submit that, I have prima facie case to oppose the vexatious claim
of the respondent both in law and or on facts, so it is just and expedient
to suspend the judgment and sentence till the disposal of the above
revision petition. If the judgment and sentence is not suspended, I will
suffer injustice.

5. If the accompanying application is not allowed, I will be put to

great hardship, loss and injury. On the other hand, no hardship of any
kind will be caused to the other side.

WHEREFORE, I pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow the

accompanying application as prayed for, in the interest of justice.

I, the deponent do hereby verify and declare that the

averments made above are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge, information and belief.

Identified by me

Advocate Deponent
Sworn to before me
Bangalore
Date:25.08.2022
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

Crl.Rev.Pet. 2019

Between

Sri. M/S MAHALAKSHMI SEEDS – Petitioner

And
M/S METAHELIX LIFE SCIENCES LTD -- Respondent

INDEX

Sl.No Particulars Page

No.
MEMORANDUM OF CRIMINAL REVISION
1 PETITION UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
2. Annexure A: Certified copy of the Judgement

3. Annexure B: Certified copy of Cheques

4. Annexure C: Copy of Partnership Deed

5. IA NO.1/2018 For Suspension of Sentence

6. Vakalath

Place: Bengaluru.
Date: 25.08.2022 Advocate for Petitioner
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

Crl.Rev.Pet. 2019

Between

Sri. M/S MAHALAKSHMI SEEDS – Petitioner

And
M/S METAHELIX LIFE SCIENCES LTD -- Respondent

INDEX

Sl.No Particulars Page

No.
1 IA NO.1/2022 For Suspension of sentence
2 Affidavit

Place: Bengaluru.
Date: 25.08.2022 ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER.
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

Criminal Revision Petition No. ________ /2022

Serial No. _____________ Bangalore Urban District

Advocate:
B.Siddeswara & Associates Between:
Advocates
No. 1/9, Jinka Plaza, Sri. V. Mudduraj
3rd Floor, Office No.2,
6th Cross, near Kanishka Hotel, And:
Gandhinagar,
Bangalore-560009, Sri. S.G. Janardhana

***
PRESENTATION

Sl. Description Page C.F.Pai

No s d
.
1. Memorandum of Criminal Appeal -
u/Ss. 397 R/W 401 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure
2. On certified copies -
3. On Vakalath/Memo of Appearance -
4. On Process Memo -
5. On copy application -
Tot -
al

Number of copies furnished Other side served

Presented by

Advocate for Appellant Received papers with

Court fee labels as above

Dt.25.08.2022 at. Bangalore Receiving Clerk