The court established that the presumption of liability under Section 139 of the NI Act applies once the signature on a cheque is admitted, shifting the burden to the accused to prove otherwise.

ORAL JUDGMENT

The appellant being the complainant in C.C.No.52371/2018 on the file of the learned V Additional Small Causes Judge and XXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, impugning the judgment dated 27.04.2022 acquitting accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the NI Act').

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court.

3. Brief facts of the case are that, the complainant has filed a private complaint in P.C.R No.50338/2018 against accused Nos.1 and 2 alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. It is the contention taken by the complainant in the private complaint that accused No.1 is the wife of accused No.2. Accused No.2 was working as a Postman in the Postal Department and he was well known to the father of the complainant. Accused No.2 even though working as a postmaster, engaged in the real estate business and acting as an agent in buying and selling of properties for several years. Accused Nos.1 and 2 used to invest in properties in the names of others by entering into benami transactions. Accused No.2 was dealing in the name of accused No.1 as he was a Government servant.

4. It is contended that both the accused were known to the complainant through her father, who was also working in the Postal Department. Father of the complainant had purchased a site through accused No.2. When the complainant wanted to purchase a site after she worked in abroad as a Software Engineer, she approached accused No.2 who identified a suitable site. Father of the complainant assisted her to deal with accused No.2. Accused No.2 identified the site for the purpose of selling it in favour of the complainant through its owner. Father of the complainant had paid Rs.5,00,000/- on 16.10.2015 by way of the Bank transfer and Rs.1,00,000/- through cash to accused No.1. Accused Nos.1 and 2 have agreed to purchase the site identified by them from its earlier owner and the agreement holder. Accused No.2 promised to sell Southern portion of the property to the complainant. Reposing confidence in the accused, the complainant and her father agreed to enter into transaction. The sale consideration of Rs.49,36,800/- was paid as agreed. The accused have informed the complainant and her father that they have paid the advance amount to the previous owner and the agreement holders and offered to get the property conveyed in favour of the complainant. Accused No.2 insisted that a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to be paid to him as brokerage and incidental expenses. The complainant agreed for that. Accordingly, accused Nos.1 and 2 have finalized the deal with the owner of the site Sri. G.Anand and the agreement holders Sri. Anand Kumar and Sri. Raghavendra N. Thus, the complainant paid the total sale consideration of Rs.49,36,800/- to the vendor and the agreement holders and got the absolute sale deed dated 19.06.2015 registered in her name. The complainant incurred registration expenses of Rs.3,50,000/-.

5. The complainant contended that subsequent to registration of the sale deed, the complainant came to know that the transaction brought about by the accused is a fraudulent one. Sri. G.Anand, who was projected as the owner of the site was not the owner of the property and the accused along with the said Sri. Anand Kumar and Sri. Raghavendra N have played fraud on the complainant, to part with her hard earned money and also the entire life savings of her father. Therefore, the complainant and her father approached the police. Accused Nos.1 and 2 have negotiated with Sri. Anand Kumar and Sri. Raghavendra N to refund the entire sale consideration along with the registration charges, brokerage paid by the accused and the interest incurred by the complainant, as she had availed loan from H.D.F.C Bank for payment of consideration amount.

6. It is contended that