Bangalore District Court
M/S Tpc Techno Power Corporation (Llp) vs Bunty K Mehta on 16 July, 2025
1 Crl.Apl.No.1276/2023
mnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnKABC010241802023
IN THE COURT OF LXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH 70)
Present:
Smt. Shirin Javeed Ansari, B.A.,LL.B (Hon`s) LL.M.,
LXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 16th day of July, 2025
Crl.A.No.1276/2023
Appellants: 1. M/s. TCP TECHNO POWER
CORPORATION (LLP),
Unit No. 2, No. 25-A, 2nd Phase,
Peenya Industrial Area,
BENGALURU - 560 058,
Rep. by its Managing partner.
2. Sri. K.S. Ashwathnarayana,
Managing Partner,
M/s TCP Techno power,
Corporation (LLP),
Unit No. 2, No. 25-A, 2nd Phase,
Peenya Industrial Area,
Bengaluru - 560 058.
(Accused No.1 and 2)
(Sri Ravi Shankar C.S. Advocate for
Appellants)
Vs.
2 Crl.Apl.No.1276/2023
Respondent: 1. Sri. Bunty K. Mehta,
S/o. Kirti Mehta,
Aged about 39 years,
Proprietor,
F.S. Enterprises,
Sy.No. 58, Andrahalli Main Road,
Yeshwanthapura Hobli,
Bengaluru - 560 091
(Complainant before trial court)
(Sri M.R.Balakrishna, Advocate for R1)
2. Sri. Arun Kumar,
Partner,
M/S TCP Techno power
Corporation (LLP),
Unit No. 2, No. 25-A, 2nd Phase,
Peenya Inustrial Area,
Bengaluru 5600 058.
(Accused No.3 before trial court)
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal filed under Section 374(3) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the
legality, correctness, and propriety of the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 17/08/2023
passed by the learned XXVII Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru City in C.C. No.1643/2015,
convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and
3 Crl.Apl.No.1276/2023
sentencing them to pay fine of Rs.4,65,50,000/-, directing
payment of Rs.4,65,00,000/- to the complainant by way of
compensation and Rs.50,000/- to the State, and further
directing that in default of payment of fine, accused No.2
shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two
years.
2. The accused No.1 and 2 in C.C.No.1643/2015
before the trial court having preferred the instant appeal
against the complainant. The appellant and the
respondent are hereby assigned with their original ranks
before the trial court i.e., the appellant as accused and
respondent as original complainant and
C.C.No.1643/2015 in the instant discussion for the
purpose of brevity and convenience to avoid the confusion
and perplexity.
3. It is the case of the complainant before the trial
court that since 2001 he had been supplying transformer
laminations to the accused firm. That by 16.4.2014 a sum
of Rs.4,49,72,829/- stood outstanding; that towards
4 Crl.Apl.No.1276/2023
payment the accused issued cheque bearing No.072834
dt.4.8.2014 for Rs.2,46,00,000/- drawn on Punjab
National Bank, Peenya Industrial Branch, Bengaluru.
That the cheque when presented returned unpaid with
endorsement, “stop payment”. The statutory notice
dt.26.11.2014 was served, but not replied and unpaid,
culminating in the complaint.
4. The accused admitted signatures but
contended inter-alia that the cheque was issued for the
security purpose. That all liabilities till 19.12.2012 stood
settled. That requisite statutory documents were withheld
by the complainant, that the complaint was defective of
non-joinder of necessary parties under Sec.141 of N.I.Act.
5. Upon evidence of PW1 – complainant with
Ex.P.1 to P.13, DW1 – accused No.2, DW2 – the bank
Manager and DW3 – representative of Skill Tech Pvt Ltd.,
the trial court convicted accused No.1 and 2, but
dismissed the complaint against accused No.3 / nominee
of Skill Tech, holding the prosecution defective vis-a-vis
5 Crl.Apl.No.1276/2023
him.
6. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment
passed by the trial court, the appellant No.1 and 2 being
accused No.1 and 2 before the trial court have preferred
the instant appeal against the respondent who was the
complainant before the trial court on the following:
7. GROUNDS OF APPLEAL
a) The Appellant No.1 herein has running
account with the Respondent No.1 and the
Respondent No.1 has claimed in the complaint
that, he has supplied the materials from 2001
to 16/04/2014, however the Appellant No.1
has been incorporated during the year 2011,
the glaring inconsistency in the Complaint, the
Trial Court has failed to consider the same and
passed the impugned order and the same is
liable to be set-aside.
b) The Trial Court has failed to appreciate
the facts in the cross-examination of PW-1, he
has categorically admitted that, the subject
cheque relates to the materials supplied
between 19/12/2012 and 16/04/2014, prior
6 Crl.Apl.No.1276/2023
to the same the entire amount has been paid
by the Appellant No.1 and also produced the
invoices pertaining to the said period, however
the Trial Court has failed to give evidentiary
value to the admission of the PW-1 and passed
the impugned order and the same is liable to
be set-aside.
c) The Trial Court has failed to appreciate
the admission of PW-1 that, the subject cheque
is issued for the bills pertaining to the 2012 to
2014 transactions and also the amount due
has been reflected in the balance sheet and the
ledger and also admitted he has no problem to
produce the same before the Court, however,
the Trial Court has failed to draw the
inferences that, the Respondent No.1 has failed
to produce the documents even though the
same are in his possession as admitted by the
PW-1, despite the same passed the impugned
order and the same is liable to be set-aside.
d) The Trial Court has failed to take note of
the fact that, the PW-1 has categorically
admitted the fact that, the transactions
reflected in VAT and he was paying the Sales
Tax to the Government and he has no problem
to produce the document, however no
7 Crl.Apl.No.1276/2023
documents have produced and marked as
Exhibits on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and
the Trial Court has failed to draw the proper
presumption in respect of the admissions
made by PW-1 and passed the impugned order
and the same is liable to be set-aside.
e) The Trial Court has failed to note that,
Ex.P1 not related to one invoice and it relates
to the transaction between 2012 to 2014, the
said admission clearly evidenced that, the
transaction prior to 2012, the First Appellant
is not liable to discharge any dues, the Trial
Court has erred in holding the said admission
of the PW-1 and passed the impugned order
and the same is liable to be set-aside.
f) The PW-1 has categorically admitted that,
Appellant No.2 and Respondent No.2, one
Veeresh and Shivashankar all are partners of
the Appellant No.1 Firm, that the Respondent
No.1 was aware of the same, however they are
not arraigned as Accused, the Complaint ought
to have been dismissed on this ground alone.
g) The Trial Court has erred in not
considering the fact that dar the outstanding
bills details, ledger extract, opening and
8 Crl.Apl.No.1276/2023
closing balance has glaring differences and the
repayment made by the Accused No.1 is not
accounted properly, hence there is no
dischargeable debt or liability in respect of the
subject cheque and passed the Impugned
order which is liable to be set-aside.
i) The Appellant No.1 being the registered
Partnership LLP, the Respondent No.1 has
failed to invoke the provision of under Section
141 of Negotiable Instruments Act and also
failed to comply with the statutory
requirements. The Trial Court ought to have
dismissed the complaint on this ground alone.
j) The Trial Court has failed to consider ratio
laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Basalingappa Vs Munibasappa and
Eshwardas Jain Vs Sohan Lan and passed
the Impugned order and the same is liable to
be set-aside.
k) The Trial Court has wrongly came to the
conclusion that, Skill Tech Company has not
been arraigned as party to the proceedings,
Respondent No.2 shall not be made as
Accused, however the Respondent No.2 is the
designated. partner of Appellant No.1 and
9 Crl.Apl.No.1276/2023
signatory to the subject cheque, there is no
need to arraign the Skill Tech Company as
Accused, based on wrongful notion, the Trial
Court passed the impugned order and the
same is liable to be set-aside.
l) The Trial Court has failed to appreciate
the fact that, if the Skill Tech Company has
not made as Party by the Respondent No.1, the
complaint filed by the Respondent No.1 ought
to have been dismissed and not the acquittal
and dismissal of the complaint against the
Respondent No.2. The Trial Court misapplied
the proposition of Law and passed the
Impugned order and the same is liable to be
set-aside.
m) The Trial Court has failed to appreciate
the fact that, the Respondent No.2 being the
representative of Skill Tech Company has
made as Partner of Appellant No.1 and also
signatory to the cheque and he is on the same
footing of the Appellant No.2 as partner,
without considering the said fact dismissed the
complaint against the Respondent No.2, the
same is ended with miscarriage of justice and
opposed to the well established principles of
Law, hence the impugned order is liable to be
10 Crl.Apl.No.1276/2023
set-aside.
n) The Trial Court has erred in dismissing
the complaint against the Respondent No.2
and acquitted from the charges on technical
ground, however considered the oral and
documentary evidence of the Respondent No.2,
against the Appellants is improper and
unknown to the well settled principles of law.
Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set-
aside.
o) The Trail Court has completely erred and
failed to consider that, Respondent No.2 never
stepped into the witness box and adduced
evidence on his behalf, however one
Shivashankar who is the Director of Skill Tech
Company has adduced the evidence on behalf
of the Respondent No.2, the Trail Court
without considering the said facts has
dismissed the complaint and acquitted the
Respondent No.2 and passed the impugned
order and the same is liable to be set-aside.
p) The complaint filed by the First
Respondent ought to have been dismissed on
the ground that, improper arraigning of
parties, the Trial Court chose to convict
11 Crl.Apl.No.1276/2023
Appellants and dismissed the complaint and
acquit Respondent No.2, has done grave
injustice and the Trial Court cannot approbate
and reprobate on the same set of facts, the
impugned order/Judgment is liable to be set-
aside on this ground alone.
q) The Trial Court has failed to appreciate
the evidence adduced by the Second Appellant
and the documents relied and passed the
Impugned order without proper application of
mind and acquitted the Respondent No.2,
which rises suspicion on the mind of the
Court, hence the impugned order is liable to be
set-aside.
r) The Trial Court has misinterpretated the
proviso of Section 7 of Limited Liability
Partnership (LLP) Act wherein it has enshrined
that, all the partners are equally liable to the
day-to-day affairs of the firm. However, without
considering the said provision has acquitted
Respondent No.2 in a casual manner, hence
the impugned order is liable to be set-aside.
s) The Trial Court has erred and failed to
give evidentiary value to the categorical
admission made by PW-1 (Respondent No.1) in
12 Crl.Apl.No.1276/2023
the cross-examination and passed the
impugned order against the probabilities of the
case and the same is liable to be set-aside.
t) The Trial Court has failed to apply the
ratio laid down in (2019) 5 Supreme Court
Cases 418, “Drawing of presumption under
and how said presumption can be rebutted-
standard of proof while prosecution must
establish its case beyond reasonable doubt,
accused to prove a defense must only meet
standard of preponderance of probabilities-
principles summarized”. The Trial Court has
passed the impugned order and the same is
liable to be set-aside.
u) The Trial Court has failed to apply the
ratio laid down in (2019) 4 Supreme Court
Cases 197: “right of presumption of innocence
of accused which prosecution is required to
dislodge by proving its case against accused
beyond reasonable doubt”. The Trial Court has
passed the impugned order and the same is
liable to be set-aside.
v) The Trial Court has falled to apply the
ratio laid down in 2020 (3) KCCR 2373
Karnataka High Court (Dharwad Bench):
13 Crl.Apl.No.1276/2023
“Issue of cheque Denied borrowal No evidence
existing legally enforceable debt or liability.
However, such a presumption is rebutted by
the accused, the onus shifts on the
complainant to prove his case”. The Trial Court
has passed the impugned order and the same
is liable to be set-aside.
8. Hence, the Appellant prays before this Court to
Call for the records of the case in C.C. No. 1643/2015
and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated
17.08.2023 by allowing this Criminal Appeal in the
interest of justice and equity.
9. Heard arguments. I have perused the
materials on record.
10. Out of the above factual circumstances of the
case the following points arise for my consideration for
determination in this appeal:
1) Whether the complainant has
established the existence of a
legally enforceable debt or liability
within the meaning of Section 138
14 Crl.Apl.No.1276/2023of the Negotiable Instruments Act
against the appellants as on the
date of issuance of the subject
cheque?
2) Whether the trial court has erred in
appreciating the evidence on
record, particularly the material
admissions of PW1, the
documentary inconsistencies, and
statutory lapses?
3) Whether the statutory presumption
under Section 139 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act has been
successfully rebutted by the
accused, and whether the
complainant has failed to discharge
the reverse burden?
4) Whether the conviction of the
appellants, while simultaneously
dismissing the complaint against
the co-signatory/accused No.3,
amounts to legal inconsistency and
violation of the provisions of
Section 141 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act?
15 Crl.Apl.No.1276/2023
5) Whether the judgment of the trial
court suffers from grave legal and
factual infirmities warranting
interference in appellate
jurisdiction?
6) What order?
11. This court upon re-appreciation of available
materials on record with reference to prevailing law of the
land, proceeds to give findings to the above points as
follows:
Point No. 1 :- In the Negative
Point No. 2 :- In the Affirmative
Point No. 3 :- In the Affirmative
Point No. 4 :- In the Affirmative
Point No. 5 :- In the Affirmative
Point No. 6 :- As per final order
for the following;
REASONS
12. POINT NO.1 to 5:- It is the case of the
complainant before the trial court that since 2001 he had
been supplying transformer laminations to the accused
firm. That by 16.4.2014 a sum of Rs.4,49,72,829/- stood
outstanding; that towards payment the accused issued
cheque bearing No.072834 dt.4.8.2014 for
16 Crl.Apl.No.1276/2023Rs.2,46,00,000/- drawn on Punjab National Bank, Peenya
Industrial Branch, Bengaluru. That the cheque when
presented returned unpaid with endorsement, “stop
payment”. The statutory notice dt.26.11.2014 was served,
but not replied and unpaid, culminating in the complaint.
13. The complainant, while presenting the case
before the trial court, claimed that the accused-firm had
business transactions with him from the year 2001 till
16/04/2014, and that there was an outstanding liability
of Rs.4,49,72,829/- as on the said date. However, it is an
undisputed fact emerging from the documentary evidence
placed on record (particularly Ex.D10 – Certificate of
Incorporation) that appellant No.1, TPC Techno Power
Corporation LLP, came into legal existence only in
January 2011. Hence, the complainant’s allegation of
transactions with the LLP from 2001 is factually
impossible and patently false. The trial court has
committed a fundamental error in not appreciating this
glaring factual inconsistency, which vitiates the very
substratum of the prosecution.
17 Crl.Apl.No.1276/2023
14. Further, in the course of cross-examination,
PW1 – the complainant – has candidly admitted that the
subject cheque does not relate to the entire alleged
outstanding amount of Rs.4.49 Crores, but only pertains
to supplies made between 19/12/2012 and 16/04/2014,
and that the dues for all transactions prior to this period
had been fully settled by the accused. This admission is
crucial and directly undercuts the complainant’s principal
case. The trial court, unfortunately, has failed to give due
evidentiary value to this categorical admission, thereby
leading to an erroneous conclusion.
15. Not only has PW1 admitted that the cheque
pertains to the period between December 2012 and April
2014, but he has also admitted that the alleged
outstanding amounts are reflected in his business balance
sheet and ledger, and he has no objection to producing
the same. However, no such documents were ever
produced before the court. The non-production of primary
documents, despite admission of their existence, invites a
serious adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the
18 Crl.Apl.No.1276/2023Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The trial court has
committed a grave error in not drawing the said inference.
16. Similarly, PW1 admitted that the transaction
details were recorded in the VAT returns and sales tax
filings submitted to the Government, and that he had no
objection to produce the same. Yet again, no tax
document or return was brought on record. The deliberate
withholding of statutory documents which are directly
relevant to the question of liability constitutes a material
omission, and the failure of the trial court to evaluate this
aspect undermines the credibility of the prosecution’s
case.
17. The subject cheque (Ex.P1), as admitted by
PW1, is not issued in respect of a single invoice, nor has it
been tied to any specific supply order or delivery challan.
The complainant himself admitted that it relates to a
group of invoices from 2012 to 2014. Therefore, the
accused-firm cannot be saddled with liability for any
period prior to December 2012. The trial court has failed
19 Crl.Apl.No.1276/2023
to appreciate this factual demarcation while holding that
the entire outstanding from 2001 is relevant.
18. Moreover, PW1 has also admitted that along
with appellant No.2, other persons such as Veeresh and
Shivashankar were also partners and designated
representatives of the LLP, and that he was aware of their
involvement. Despite this knowledge, the complainant
chose not to array them as accused in the present
complaint. The complaint therefore suffers from material
non-joinder of necessary parties, contrary to the
mandatory requirement under Section 141 of the NI Act.
19. The complainant has placed on record Ex.P10
(alleged confirmation letter) and Ex.P11 (ledger extract),
but a comparative reading of these documents reveals
glaring inconsistencies, including mismatched figures,
unexplained debits, and discrepancies in opening and
closing balances. Further, payments made by accused
No.1 during the period have not been duly reflected or
accounted for. The trial court has glossed over these
20 Crl.Apl.No.1276/2023
discrepancies without due evaluation.
20. The complaint is also defective in law.
Appellant No.1 being a Limited Liability Partnership is
governed by the LLP Act, 2008. As such, Section 141 of
the NI Act read with Section 7 of the LLP Act mandates
that the LLP and all designated partners be properly
arraigned and their role specifically pleaded in the
complaint. The complainant has neither pleaded the
specific role of each partner nor arrayed Skill Tech Pvt.
Ltd., the designated partner, as an accused. This renders
the complaint legally unsustainable.
21. The trial court has further failed to apply
binding precedents including Basalingappa v.
Mudibasappa [(2019) 5 SCC 418], wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that once the presumption under
Section 139 of the NI Act is rebutted through a probable
defence, the burden shifts back to the complainant to
prove the legally enforceable liability. The trial court
erroneously assumed that the presumption alone is
21 Crl.Apl.No.1276/2023
sufficient for conviction.
22. The trial court has wrongly held that Skill Tech
Pvt. Ltd. need not be arraigned as an accused, while
simultaneously dismissing the complaint against accused
No.3 (its nominee) on the ground of non-joinder. This
contradiction exposes the inconsistent legal approach
adopted in the impugned judgment.
23. In fact, if the trial court was of the view that
non-joinder of Skill Tech Pvt. Ltd. rendered the complaint
defective vis-à-vis accused No.3, it ought to have
dismissed the complaint in toto, and not just qua one
accused. The selective dismissal violates the settled
principle that a complaint must stand or fall as a whole
when the allegation is collective and arises from a single
transaction.
24. Accused No.3, who stood on the same legal
footing as appellant No.2, being a co-signatory to the
cheque and representative of Skill Tech Pvt. Ltd., was
acquitted without assigning reasons differentiating him
22 Crl.Apl.No.1276/2023
from appellant No.2. This unequal treatment, despite
identical roles, is opposed to law and justice.
25. Despite having acquitted accused No.3, the
trial court has relied on the oral and documentary
evidence pertaining to him to convict the appellants. This
is wholly impermissible. Once the complaint was
dismissed against a co-accused on a technical ground, his
evidence and documents cannot be selectively applied to
fasten liability on others.
26. Accused No.3 never entered the witness box.
One Shivashankar, Director of Skill Tech Pvt. Ltd., was
examined as DW3 on behalf of accused No.3. The trial
court failed to note that DW3’s evidence cannot be
construed as direct testimony of accused No.3. It was
improper for the trial court to rely on such derivative
testimony.
27. The complaint should have been dismissed in
its entirety for defective arraignment of parties and
procedural irregularities. Instead, the trial court chose to
23 Crl.Apl.No.1276/2023
convict some and acquit others on the same set of facts.
This double standard amounts to judicial inconsistency.
28. The trial court has failed to properly appreciate
the defence evidence led by the appellants, including the
cheque status reports, correspondence, ledger objections,
and repayment proofs. The documentary and oral
evidence adduced by appellant No.2 was not given due
consideration.
29. The trial court misinterpreted the provisions of
the LLP Act, especially Section 7 and the implication of
equal liability among partners. The acquittal of accused
No.3 on a casual interpretation of the LLP framework is
untenable in law.
30. The trial court has also failed to appreciate the
admissions made by PW1 in his cross-examination. These
admissions go to the root of the alleged debt and the
complainant’s own knowledge of the partnership
structure. The failure to assign evidentiary weight to such
critical admissions renders the impugned judgment legally
24 Crl.Apl.No.1276/2023
infirm.
31. The trial court has failed to apply the
principles laid down in Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa
[(2019) 5 SCC 418], particularly in regard to the standard
of rebuttal, which is one of preponderance of probability,
and not beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment ignores
this foundational principle.
32. Likewise, the trial court has not considered the
ratio of Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel v. State of Gujarat
[(2019) 4 SCC 197], which reiterates that the presumption
of innocence is a constitutional right and must be
displaced by credible, cogent evidence, which is absent in
the present case.
33. The trial court has failed to apply the judgment
of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka reported in KCCR
2020 (3) 2373, which holds that when the execution of the
cheque is admitted but the existence of debt is disputed
and the complainant fails to prove the same, the
complaint must fail. The same principle applies squarely
25 Crl.Apl.No.1276/2023
here.
34. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is
abundantly clear that the prosecution has failed to prove
the existence of a legally enforceable debt. The
presumption under Section 139 NI Act has been duly
rebutted by the accused through consistent and probable
defence. The complainant has failed to discharge the
reverse burden. The trial court has failed to appreciate
material admissions, has misapplied settled legal
principles, and has rendered a judgment that is legally
unsustainable. Hence I answer point No. 1 in the Negative
and Point No.2 to 5 in the Affirmative.
21. Point No.6: In the light of my findings on
point No.1 to 5, I proceed to pass the following
ORDER
Appeal u/s. 374(2) of Cr.P.C filed by the
appellant is hereby allowed.
The judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 17/08/2023 passed by the
learned XXVII Addl. Chief Metropolitan
26 Crl.Apl.No.1276/2023
Magistrate, Bengaluru City, in C.C.
No.1643/2015, is hereby set aside.
Consequently, the appellants/accused
Nos.1 and 2 are acquitted of the offence
punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
The bail bonds executed by the
appellants/accused No.1 and 2 shall stand
cancelled.
If any amount has been deposited by the
appellants in pursuance of the judgment of
the trial court, the same shall be refunded to
them forthwith.
Send back the trial court records with
a copy of this judgment forthwith.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-1 directly on the computer,
corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open court on this
the 16th day of July, 2025)
(Shirin Javeed Ansari)
LXIX Addl.C.C. & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.