Point of Law: A party who consents to alternations as well as party who made alternations are disentitled to complain against such alternations.

ORDER :

This revision is filed by the petitioner challenging the concurrent findings of judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.11.2016 passed by the 2nd Additional Small Causes Court and 18th Additional CMM, Bengaluru, in C.C. No.48039/2010 and confirmed by the 64th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Criminal Appeal No.1509/2016 vide order dated 02.05.2019.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred with their original ranks occupied by them before the trial Court.

3. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are that, the complainant has lodged a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the accused/revision petitioner herein for the offence punishable under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘N.I. Act’ for short). It is the contention of the complainant that for the purpose of running business of M/s. Jatti Projects Inc., which is a proprietary firm, the accused has borrowed a sum of Rs.10.00 Lakhs by executing On-demand Promissory Note on 19.04.2007 and he has also agreed to repay the same with interest as and when demanded. It is also alleged that the said amount was paid by the complainant through a cheque bearing No.891164 dated 07.04.2007 drawn on M/s. The Catholic Syrian Bank Limited, Ghandhinagar Branch, Bengaluru. In discharge of the said debt, the accused has issued a cheque for Rs.10.00 Lakhs and also promised to pay the interest on later date. It is also alleged that the accused has paid interest from 09.04.2007 till 09.01.2009 and he is required to pay interest due from 10.01.2009 and he has issued the cheque for Rs.10.00 Lakhs towards part payment of liability.

4. It is further contended that, when the complainant has presented the said cheque for encashment, the same was dishonoured and he has issued legal notice on 08.10.2010, but the accused has neither paid the cheque amount nor replied to the notice and hence, a complaint came to be lodged. After lodging complaint, the learned Magistrate has recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and after appreciating the materials, he has taken cognizance and issued process against the accused.

5. The accused has appeared before the learned Magistrate and was enlarged on bail. The accusation was read-over and explained to him and he pleaded not guilty. To prove the guilt of accused, the power of attorney holder of complainant was examined as PW.1 and placed reliance on 13 documents marked at Exs.P1 to P.13.

6. After conclusion of evidence of complainant, the statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. came to be recorded and the case of accused is of total denial. He asserted that, the complainant is not known to him and signed cheque was with one Manoj Gera and from him the complainant has received it and filed this false case. Accused got examined himself as DW.1 and one witness was examined as DW.2. The accused has also placed reliance on Exs.D1 to D5. The hand-writing expert Smt. C.V. Jayadevi was also examined as CW.1 and Ex.C1 was marked in her evidence.

7. After hearing arguments and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate found that the complainant is able to discharge his burden by proving the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt and convicted the accused for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act by imposing sentence of fine of Rs.10.05,000/- with default cause.

8. Being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction, the accused has approached the learned 14th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Criminal Appeal No.1509/2016. The learned Sessions Judge after re-appreciating the oral as well documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Magistrate. Being aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the revision petitioner/accused is before this Court by way of this revision.

9. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for