The revision petitioner–accused in CC No.9068/2018

on the file of the learned XV Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial

court’ for the brevity), is impugning the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence dated 28.01.2020,

convicting him for the offence punishable under Section

138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (‘NI Act’ for short)

and sentencing him to pay fine of Rs.13,35,000/-, in

default to under-go simple imprisonment for six months,

which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.336/2020 on the file of

the learned LXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,

(CCH-64), Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as ‘the First

Appellate Court’ for brevity) vide its judgment dated

08.07.2022.

2.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are

referred to as per their rank and status before the trial

court.

- 3 -

3.

Brief facts of the case are that, the accused and

his wife Bhagya were known to the complainant since

several years. The accused and his wife Bhagya are the

absolute owners of the schedule property bearing No.41,

Ward No.99, Old No.64, PID No.99-114-41, situated at

Rajmahal Guttahalli, A.K.Colony, Bangalore measuring

East to West 20 feet and North to South 21 feet. They

agreed to sell the same in favour of the complainant for

total

consideration

of

Rs.36,00,000/-.

Accordingly,

agreement for sale dated 28.04.2015 was entered into

between the parties. The complainant paid Rs.18,00,000/-

in advance i.e., Rs.5,25,000/- paid through cheque dated

24.01.2013

and

Rs.12,75,000/-

paid

in

cash

on

28.04.2015. The accused and his wife acknowledged the

receipt of the advance amount of Rs.18,00,000/- and

executed the agreement of sale on 28.04.2015, in the

presence of the witnesses. Since the accused had not

came forward to execute sale deed, the complainant

issued legal notice on 12.05.2016 calling upon him to

execute the sale deed. Since the accused had not came

- 4 -

forward to execute the sale deed, police complaint was

filed before the Vyalikaval police Station on 01.06.2016.

The accused gave a letter of undertaking agreeing to pay

Rs.15,25,000/- out of Rs.18,00,000/-. Accordingly, they

have paid Rs.2,00,000/- on 07.07.2016 itself through

cheque

bearing

No.820250.

On

repeated demands,

accused issued the cheque for Rs.13,25,000/- towards

repayment of the amount, which was due to the

complainant.

When

the

cheque

was

presented

for

encashment,

the

same

was

dishonored

as

'Funds

Insufficient’. The complainant issued legal notice calling

upon the accused to repay the amount, which was due,

but the accused avoided service of notice and payment of

the cheque amount. Thereby, the accused has committed

an offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act.

4.

The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the

offence and the accused appeared before the trial court in

response to summons and pleaded not guilty for the

accusation made against him. The complainant examined

- 5 -

himself as PW1, examined PW2 and got marked Ex.P.1 to

12 in support of his contention. The accused denied all

the incriminating materials available on record in the

statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The

accused examined himself as DW1 and got marked

Exs.D.1 and 2 in support of his defence. The trial court

after taking into consideration of all these materials on

record, came to the conclusion that the complainant is

successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond

reasonable doubt.

5.

Being aggrieved by the same, the accused has

preferred Crl.A.No.336/2020. The first appellate court on

re-appreciation of the materials on record, dismissed the

appeal by confirming the impugned judgment of conviction

and order of sentence passed by the trial court. Hence, the

accused is before this court.

6.

Heard Sri. Srinivas N, learned counsel for the

revision petitioner and Sri. George Anthony Cruz, learned

- 6 -

counsel for the respondent. Perused the materials

including the trial court records.

7.

Learned cou