The statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act remains intact and binding unless the accused successfully rebuts it through credible evidence; a 'stop payment' instruction without valid justification or documented evidence does not automatically discharge the drawer's liability.

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.10.2025, AT ANNEXURE-A PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.244/2023 BY THE LV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS COURT, BENGALURU, WHEREIN THE ORDER OF THE XVI ACMM, BENGALURU DATED 23.01.2023 IN CC.NO.13363/2018, AT ANNEXURE-B WAS CONFIRMED.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri D.Ramdas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.R.Deepak, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Accused who has suffered an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C No.13363/2018, confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.244/2023 is the revision petitioner.

3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under:

3.1 A private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure came to be lodged with the jurisdictional Magistrate by the respondent/complainant alleging that accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

3.2 Complaint averments reveal that accused and his wife are the owners of immovable properties bearing No.75/1 and 76/23 measuring 5 acres 24 guntas situated at Dodderi Village, Tavarekere Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, in which a residential layout was formed by the accused and his wife.

4. Complainant had entered into an agreement of sale dated 02.03.2016 in which the accused and his wife agreed to sell 15 sites to the complainant of different dimensions bearing Nos.63, 69, 70, 71, 73, 76, 78, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 88 and 89, in all measuring 18,918.55 square feet for a total consideration of ₹1,20,00,000/- of which complainant initially transferred ₹30,00,000/- by way of RTGS to the accused on 02.03.2016.

5. Thereafter, complainant had issued a cheque for ₹65,00,000/- in the name of wife of the accused drawn on Canara Bank, Lavelle Road, Branch and sum ₹5,00,000/- was paid in cash to the accused and his wife and remaining ₹20,00,000/- was promised to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed.

6. Complaint averments further reveal that after receiving the sale consideration of ₹1,00,00,000/-, the wife of the accused has executed an agreement of sale in favour of the complainant in the presence of the accused and promised to complete the sale transaction within eleven months. Complainant waited for more than two years but there was no fulfilment of the promise made by the accused and his wife and there was no sale deed registered.

7. Thereafter, complainant demanded return of the money of ₹1,00,00,000/- and penalty of ₹1,00,00,000/- for the delay caused.

8. It is also contended that on persistent demands, accused issued a cheque bearing No.124860 dated 15.01.2018 in a sum of ₹1,00,00,000/- drawn on Bharat Bank Ltd. Jayanagar Branch, Bengaluru.

9. Complainant presented the said cheque for encashment which came to be dishonored with an endorsement ‘payment stopped’ by the drawer.

10. Thereafter, a legal notice was issued on 10.04.2018 calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount of ₹1,00,00,000/- within fifteen days and penalty of ₹1,00,00,000/-.

11. But despite service of legal notice, there was no compliance to the callings of the notice and therefore, complainant sought for action.

12. Learned Trial Magistrate after completing necessary formalities, summoned the ac