K. NATARAJAN, J.

1. This revision petition is filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the I Addl. CMM, Bengaluru in C.C.No.2245/2000 for the offence under Section 420 IPC and confirmed by the Fast Track Court No. VIII in Crl.A.No.1408/2015 dated 26.11.2010.

2. The petitioner was the accused and the respondent-State was the complainant before the courts below. The same ranks of the parties are retained, for brevity.

3. The case of the prosecution is that PW-1 Indiramma has filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. as per Ex.P2/P9 (both are one and the same document) before the trial Court against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC alleging that the accused is known to the complainant and her husband and that the accused had offered a site for sale to the complainant. Accordingly the agreement was entered into between them for a sale consideration of Rs.3,50,000/- and the accused said to have received Rs.2,70,000/- and executed Ex.P1, the agreement of sale, with the assurance to execute the sale deed within five months. But later, the complainant came to know that on 30.04.1997, a portion of the sale property has been sold by the accused by executing the sale deed in favour of his mother, Shivalingamma. Therefore the complainant filed the complaint before the trial Court. The same was referred under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to the CCB police to register the crime and submit a final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. In turn, the DCP (Crime), Bengaluru City, forwarded the same to Hanumanthanagar Police. In turn, the Hanumanthanagar Police registered a case in Crime No.182/99 and issued FIR and subsequently investigated the case and filed the charge-sheet. The accused appeared before the Court and was released on bail. Then the charges were framed against the accused and he has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Later prosecution was called upon to adduce evidence. The prosecution, in all, examined 7 witnesses and 11 documents were marked and thereafter the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused has denied the evidence of the prosecution. But not entered into any defence. After hearing the arguments, the learned trial Judge found the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months with fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months.

4. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred the appeal before the City Civil and Sessions Court and the same was made over to the Fast Track Court No. VIII and numbered as Crl.A.No.1408/2005. After hearing the arguments, the learned Fast Track Court dismissed the appeal vide order dated 26.11.2010, by confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred this revision on various grounds contending that the judgment of conviction and sentence are erroneous and the trial Court, not appreciated the evidence on record and not at all touching the cross-examination made by the accused that if the petitioner failed to execute the sale deed in favour of PW-1, liberty was given to PW-1 to approach the competent civil Court to get the sale deed executed in her favour and has passed the impugned judgment. The allegation is purely civil in nature which does not constitute criminal liability and the admission made by PW-1 that the Ex.P1-agreement was executed in the police station, was not appreciated by the court below and the counsel also disputed the evidence of PW- 3, handwriting expert, and hence prayed for allowing the petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader. Perused the records.

6. The counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that Ex.P1 is an agreement of sale which does not contain the date of its ex