ON

24.03.2023,

COMING

ON

FOR

‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE

THE FOLLOWING:

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 2^nd Additional

Small Causes Court and 18^th Additional CMM, Bengaluru, in

C.C. No.48039/2010 and confirmed by the 64^th 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

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

4

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

5

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

6

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 14^th 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,