ORDER :

The present respondent had instituted a complaint against the present revision petitioner under S.200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter, for brevity referred to as ‘the N.I. Act’) in the Court of XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City. The Trial Court by its Judgment dated 22.04.2008 convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and passed the Order on sentence.

2. The summary of the case of the complainant in the Trial Court is that the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.9,35,000/from him on 03.05.2002 and had executed an ‘on demand promissory note’ and consideration receipt. The loan was taken by the accused for the improvement of his business. Towards the return of the loan amount, the accused had issued a cheque dated 06.09.2004 in favour of the complainant for a sum of Rs.9,35,000/, drawn on Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd., OTC Road Branch, Bengaluru. When the said cheque was presented by the complainant the same came to be dishonoured by the banker’s endorsement as ‘funds insufficient’. Since the accused did not repay the cheque amount even after serving a legal notice dated 17.09.2004 upon him, the complainant was constrained to file the complaint before the Court. The accused appeared through his counsel and contested the matter.

In order to prove the alleged guilt against the accused, complainant himself got examined as PW1 and got marked documents at Exs.P1 to P9. The accused got himself examined as DW1 and got examined one Prakash Chand as DW2 and got marked documents at Exs.D1 to D13. After hearing arguments from both side, the Trial Court by its impugned Judgment of conviction and Order on sentence dated 22.04.2008, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under S.138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him accordingly.

3. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, City Fast Track Court – VII, Bangalore City in Criminal Appeal No.422/2008, which Court, after hearing both side, by its considered Judgment dated 26.10.2010, dismissed the appeal by confirming the Judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court. It is challenging the said Judgment of conviction and Order on sentence, the accused has preferred this revision petition.

4. The respondent is being represented by his learned counsel.

5. Trial Court records were called for and the same are placed before the Court.

6. Heard arguments from both side. Perused the materials placed before the Court.

7. The points that arise for my consideration are:

(i) Whether the Courts below have committed illegality by holding that the accused has committed an offence punishable under S.138 of the N.I. Act, as alleged?

(ii) Whether the Judgment of conviction and Order on sentence under revision deserves interference at the hands of this Court?

8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner in his arguments submitted that the money transaction was between the accused and the father of the complainant but never such a transaction has taken place between the accused and the complainant. During the said money transaction, the father of the complainant used to collect blank cheques from the accused. However he failed to return some of the cheques even though the loans were repaid, on the pretext that the cheques were misplaced by him and he would return the same later. Further, he, joined by his son who is the complainant has misused one such cheque by presenting the same in the name of the complainant and instituting a false complaint through the said son.

Learned counsel further submitted that the said father has been examined by the accused as DW2 who has admitted the financial transaction between him and the accused. This supports the contention of the accused that the financial transaction was with DW2 but not with the accused. Learned counsel also submitted that when the compl