The main legal point established in the judgment is the presumption in favor of the complainant under Section 118 and Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the importance of documentary evidence in rebutting the presumption.

JUDGMENT

H.P. Sandesh, J. - This criminal revision petition is filed to set aside the judgment dated 14.11.2017 passed by the LXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Criminal Appeal No. 275/2017 i.e., the dismissal of the appeal filed by the petitioner herein by confirming the judgment of conviction passed by the XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in C.C. No. 34476/2014 vide judgment dated 15.11.2016.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the State.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the respondent before the Trial Court is that the complainant was in search of the house and hence, he had contacted this petitioner and this petitioner has received an amount of Rs. 6 lakhs. Out of Rs. 6 lakhs, Rs. 2 lakhs was paid by way of cash and Rs. 4 lakhs by way of cheque. Inspite of receiving the said amount, he did not lease out the house in favour of the complainant. In furtherance of the demand made by the complainant, the petitioner issued two subject matter cheques and those two cheques have been presented and both the cheques have been dishonoured. Hence, the complainant issued legal notice and the same is acknowledged and inspite of receiving the notice, the petitioner did not comply with the same and hence, the complainant filed a complaint.

4. The complainant, in order to prove his case, examined himself as P.W.1 and marked the documents as Exs. P1 to P12. On the other hand, the petitioner-accused examined himself as D.W.1 and no document is marked.

5. The Trial Court, after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('N.I. Act' for short). Hence, an appeal is filed before the Appellate Court in Crl.A. No. 257/2017. The Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of evidence available on record, dismissed the same. Hence, the present revision petition is filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the complainant has failed to prove his capacity for having paid the amount of Rs. 6 lakhs. The counsel also would submit that, for having paid an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs by way of cash, no document is placed on record by the complainant. The complainant has also not placed any material for having agreed to lease out the house and lease deed is also not produced. The counsel also would submit that the cheques which are the subject matter are in the name of Proprietor of RNS Greetings and not in the individual capacity of the petitioner. The counsel would submit that, it is only a business transaction and the petitioner had not agreed to least out any house and the complainant has given different colour to the said transaction. The counsel would further submit that both the cheques are dated same and hence, the complainant has not proved the case. Inspite of the fact that the complainant has not proved the case, both the Courts committed an error and passed perverse order. The counsel would submit that in Ex. P11-complaint, a specific averment is made with regard to the amount paid as Proprietor of RNS Greetings and not in the individual capacity.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that, it is the very defence of the petitioner before the Trial Court that it was a business transaction and not a leasehold transaction. In order to prove the same, no material is placed before the Court, except examining himself. The counsel also would submit that, in the oral evidence of the petitioner, he speaks with regard to the transaction with Babu and that he gave the cheque in favour of the respondent is not explained by him. The counsel also would submit that the statement made before the Court is very clear that he had admitted the lease transaction and he was unable to make payment. Hence, he has issued subject matter cheques and the petitioner also not disputes issuance of t