This revision petition is filed by the petitioner

under section 397 and 401 of The Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973(for short hereinafter referred to as

Cr.P.C.) with a prayer to set-aside the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence dated 15.03.2019

passed by learned LXV Additional City Civil and Sessions

Judge, Bangalore in Crl.A.No.969/2016, wherein the

learned sessions judge confirmed the judgment of

conviction dated 11.05.2016 passed by learned XLII

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in

C.C.No.4149/2015, wherein the accused is convicted for

the offence punishable under section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short hereinafter

referred to as N.I.Act) and acquit the petitioner of the

said charge.

2. The Revision petitioner before this Court was

the accused before the trial court and the respondent

was the complainant. For the sake of convenience, the

parties will be referred as 'accused' and 'complainant' as

per their respective ranks before the trial court.

- 3 -

3. The brief case of the complaint before the trial

court is as under:-

That the complainant is a company incorporated

under the Companies Act, 1956. It is further case of the

complainant that in the second week of January 2014,

the accused approached the complainant alongwith her

husband and son stating that she is the absolute owner

of the property bearing Sy.No.45/46 measuring 50' x

70' in Sy.No.25 situated at J.P. Nagar, 6th Phase,

Bengaluru and they offered the complainant to purchase

or develop the said property by entering into a joint

development agreement. Believing the representation of

the accused, the complainant agreed for the same. In

this regard, on 21.02.2014, the accused requested the

complainant to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as advance

to clear some loans. The complainant paid a sum of

Rs.2,10,000/- by way of cash and Rs.2,90,000/- by way

of cheque bearing No.000160 dated 21.02.2014 drawn

on HDFC, Jayanagar, Bengaluru. At the time of

collecting money from the complainant, the accused

executed a joint development agreement in favour of

- 4 -

the complainant and if she fails to do so, the amount

will be repaid within 15 days. It is further contended

that

the

accused

executed

a

Memorandum

of

Undertaking in favour of the complainant after receiving

the amount and the husband and son of the accused

also signed as witnesses to the said MOU.

4. It is further contended that the complainant

thereafter got verified the property papers given by the

accused through an Advocate and came to know that

the said property was already mortgaged to certain

bank by availing the loan. In this regard, the

complainant enquired with the accused and the accused

admitted the same and stated that she would repay the

amount and requested not to take any legal action

against her. On several occasions, the complainant

requested

the

accused

to

repay

the

amount.

Subsequently, in the last week of September 2014, the

accused issued a post-dated cheque bearing No.008042

dated 06.10.2014 for Rs.5,00,000/- drawn on Bank of

Maharashtra, J.P. Nagar Branch, Bengaluru, in favour of

the complainant. The complainant presented the said

- 5 -

cheque to the bank for encashment on 06.10.2014

through its banker HDFC, but the said cheque was

returned with an endorsement 'Funds Insufficient'.

Thereafter, the complainant got issued a notice to the

accused on 08.11.2014 through RPAD. Though the said

notice was served on the accused on 12.11.2014, the

accused neither replied to the notice nor paid any

amount. Therefore, the complainant was constrained to

lodge a complaint against the accused under section

138 of N.I. Act.

5. Before the trial court, the accused appeared.

The complainant got examined himself as PW-1 and got

marked six documents as Ex P1 to P6. The statement of

the accused under section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. was

recorded. The accused denied evidence of complainant.

The accused has not chosen to adduce defence

evidence. After hearing both sides,