1. The judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the XIV Addl. CMM., Bangalore, in a proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Act' for brevity) upheld by the lower appellate court is under attack in this revision petition.

2. Parties will be referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

3. The complainant after issuance of statutory notice to the accused lodged a private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. before the jurisdictional court alleging offence under Section 138 of the Act against the (husband and wife) purchased immovable property/residential site in a revenue land; towards the part payment, issued a cheque dt.20.2.2009 for Rs.12 lakhs drawn on SBM Lingarajapuram Branch, Bengaluru and the cheque was presented by the complainant before his banker. It was returned with the endorsement "exceeds arrangement". The legal notice/demand notice sent through RPAD and UCP dt.26.8.2009 is served on the accused on 4.9.2009 but he failed to make payment of the cheque amount.

4. The accused was procured, his plea for the offence under Section 138 of the Act was recorded and he pleaded not guilty. Complainant led the evidence of himself as PW-1 and a witness as PW-2. After the closure of the complainant's evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. He led rebuttal evidence as PW-1 and marked documents Exs.D1 to D5.

5. The trial court on consideration of the evidentiary material placed before it, held the accused guilty of the offence, convicted him of simple imprisonment for one year and acting under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C., first accused was directed to pay compensation of Rs.19,20,000/-, out of which Rs.5,000/- was to be deposited as fine.

6. In the appeal, the lower appellate court refused to interfere with the said order.

7. Sri.Sunil Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner/accused submits, it was the case of the complainant that he had entered into Memorandum of Understanding ('MOU' for short) with the accused wherein accused had undertaken to pay a sum of Rs.15 lakhs upon the performance of certain conditions numbered under said MOU/Ex.P10. It was the cross- examination admission of the complainant that the contractual obligation was not complied with. Even otherwise, it was not within the domain of the trial court to investigate, whether the contract between the parties had been satisfied, thus, the courts below erred in coming into conclusion that there was a debt owed by the accused to the complainant. As per the sale deed/Ex.D1 under which PW-2 sold the property to the accused, entire sale consideration was paid to the complainant. It suggests that the complainant was indirectly holding the property in the name of PW-2 and has taken benefit out of said transaction. PW-2 has categorically admitted during cross-examination that the entire sale consideration under Ex.D1 was given to the complainant and he did not receive even a single rupee under the said transaction.

Learned Counsel continues, it is the case of PW-1 that to avoid payment of stamp duty, the sale consideration was shown as Rs.8,75,000/- instead of purported consideration of Rs.26,50,000/-. PW-2 admits that money claimed by the complainant was unaccounted money of the registered transaction but this fact was lost sight by the trial court.

8. Reliance is placed by the learned Counsel on following judgments: 1) Indus Airways Pvt.Ltd. & Ors. - vs- Magnum Aviation Pvt. Ltd. & Another (2014) 12 SCC 539; 2) G.M.Sathyanarayana -vs- Anandkumar (Crl.A.No.993/2008 DD 11.12.2013); (3) G.Pankajakshi Amma and Others -vs- Mathai Mathew (dead) through LRs and Another ((2004) 12 SCC 83) and (4) Reverend Mother Marykutty -vs- Reni C.Kottaram and Another ((2013).

9. Sri.S.Raj Prabhu, learned Counsel for the respondent in his reply submits, the case of the petitioner is, the accused agreed to purchase the property, which was under the ownership of the complainant and a sale agreement