This revision petition is filed by the accused under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, calling in question the legality and correctness of the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (FTC-VI), dated 13.12.2010 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1039/2007, whereby the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Magistrate, Bengaluru City, dated 18.01.2006 in C.C.No.29704/2002 is confirmed modifying the sentence to pay fine of Rs.1,75,000/- instead of Rs.2,05,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and out of the fine amount awarding compensation of Rs.1,70,000/- to the complainant and to confiscate Rs.5,000/- to the Government.

2. The respondent/complainant filed complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging that the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘Act’ for short), which came to be registered as C.C.No.29704/2002 on the file of the learned XVIII ACMM and XX ASCJ, Bengaluru city. On the issuance of the summons to the accused, the accused appeared and got himself released on bail. The accused not pleaded guilty, claimed to be tried for the charges framed against him under Sections 138 and 139 of the Act.

3. It is the case of the complainant that the accused approached him for the construction of a house. Accordingly, an agreement was entered into between them. The construction work was completed by the complainant and the possession of the building was handed over to the accused and the accused was due to pay balance of Rs.1,50,000/- towards construction cost of the building and to clear the same Ex.P2/cheque bearing No.043932 for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Bengaluru was issued, which was returned to the drawer on presentation for encashment with an endorsement “Payment stopped by the drawer”. The legal notice issued by the complainant was duly served on the accused and a reply notice was also issued.

4. The complainant got himself examined as PW.1 and marked documents Exs.P1 to P7(a), whereas accused got examined himself as DW1 and another witness as DW2, marked Exs.D1 to D19 to substantiate his defence. The learned Trial Judge convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act passing sentence to pay Rs.2,05,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Out of fine amount, Rs.2,00,000/- shall be awarded as compensation to the complainant and Rs.5,000/- to be appropriated towards expenses of the State Government. Being aggrieved by the same, accused preferred appeal. The order of conviction came to be confirmed modifying the sentence as aforesaid in the preceding paragraphs. Hence, this revision petition.

5. Learned counsel Sri. Shyam Koundinya A.S., appearing for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the cheque was issued on 08.06.2001 as a security to the respondent towards construction of the building agreement as agreed between the parties as per Ex.D1. The said cheque was undated. The complainant filling the date on 21.06.2002, presented the same on 24.06.2002 for encashment, despite issuing reply notice dated 10.07.2002 as per Ex.P5 requesting the respondent to return the cheque as final bill issued by the respondent has been finally settled. No liability to discharge the legally enforceable debt subsists at the time of presentation of the cheque. Respondent knowing very well the request of the petitioner, presented the cheque which came to be returned with an endorsement “Payment stopped by the drawer” as informed to the banker by the petitioner. It is thus mainly argued that the cheque issued on 08.06.2001 was barred by the period of limitation prescribed, for presentation on 24.06.2002. On this ground alone, the Courts below ought to have acquitted the petitioner/accused against the charges leveled.

6. Nextly, learned counsel submitted that both the Cour