JUDGMENT :

B. A. Patil, J.

This petition is filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 challenging the judgment and order dated 10.12.2018 passed by the 55th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-56) in Criminal Appeal No.318/2013 whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 12.6.2013 passed by the XV ACMM, Bangalore, in CC.No.31506/2011 has been confirmed.

2. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri P.S.Rajagopal for the petitioners and Sri Sharath S.Gowda for the respondent-complainant.

3. Before going to consider the issue in question, it is relevant to mention here itself that during the course of arguments, a memo dated 28.8.2019 has been filed by the petitioners seeking permission to withdraw the petition as not pressed only in so far as petitioner No.1 is concerned as the trial Court has not passed any conviction order as against petitioner No.1 and by mistake the petition is filed by accused No.1. Accordingly, this Court by its order dated 28.8.2019 dismissed the petition filed by petitioner No.1-accused No.1 as withdrawn, at the risk of the petitioners.

4. Case in brief as per the complaint is that complainant and accused were acquainted with each other. In the year 2006-07, agricultural lands of the complainant were acquired by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board and he was paid the compensation for the said acquisition. As he was having intention to invest the said amount in some other converted land in and around Devanahalli Taluka, he contacted one Thippaiah who was owning the converted land bearing Sy.No.193, measuring 5 acres at Tindlu Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli. He agreed to sell one acre of the land in the said Sy.No.193 and 2 acres of land in Sy.No.189 to the complainant. A registered agreement of sale was got executed on 16.7.2008, whereunder the said Thippaiah agreed to sell 3 acres of land for an amount of Rs.30 lakhs per acre. The complainant paid an advance amount of sale consideration of Rs.75 Lakhs as per the terms of the two registered agreements of sale and the balance amount of sale consideration of Rs.15 Lakhs has to be paid at the time of execution of final registered sale deed. It is further case of the complainant that on repeated demand, the said Thippaiah failed to execute the registered sale deed by receiving balance consideration and later he came to know that the said Thippaiah had agreed to sell the land to accused No.1 and has executed the registered sale deed and put him in possession of the same. It is further alleged that the said Thippaiah has created a Power of Attorney alleged to have been executed by the complainant in favour of one Gopal who has put his signature as consenting party to the sale deed executed in favour of accused No.1. Actually no such person by name Gopal is residing in Buttaramaranahalli Village. After coming to know the said fact the complainant filed a complaint against the accused, Thippaiah and Gopal. After coming to know about filing of the complaint, they approached the complainant for settlement and after prolonged negotiation, the matter was settled between the parties. Accused agreed to pay Rs.2 Crores to the complainant and complainant has to give up his claim over the said property. A memorandum of understanding or settlement was executed between the said parties. At the time of execution of the said agreement of settlement, accused paid Rs.25 Lakhs to the complainant by way of cash and issued three cheques for a sum of Rs.25 Lakhs each and other two cheques for Rs.5 Lakhs and Rs.1 Crore. The said cheques were issued by accused No.2 as a representative of accused No.1- Company. The said cheques have been issued towards legally enforceable debt in terms of the settlement deed dated 4.6.2011.

5. When the complainant presented the said cheques for encashment through his banker, they were returned dishourned with an endorsement "funds insufficient". The complainant issued legal demand notice dated 12.8.2011 to