INDUS INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL Vs. M A CARIAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 25.11.2010 passed in C.C.No.30613/2007 on the file of XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City.

(2.) The parties are referred to as per their original ranking before the Trial Court as complainant and accused to avoid the confusion and for the convenience of the Court.

(3.) The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant is a reputed International School in Bengaluru. The accused approached the complainant representing his expertise and contacts in matters of land conversion, approvals etc. The complainant paid the accused a sum of Rs.7,69,200/- towards the Government conversion fee and commission to handle the entire process of conversion of lands situated at Sarjapur, Anekal Taluk, with the permission of BMRDA of additional school room for the exiting school. The accused assured the complainant that he would get the land converted with the permission of concerned authorities. The complainant delivered necessary documents and made payments through UTI Bank to the accused and the accused failed to get the complainant's land converted as promised by him. He continued to receive the payments from the complainant and did not put any effort to get the conversion of land. The complainant came to know that the accused has not made any efforts and requested to return the payments paid towards the Government fee and commission. The accused was due to pay a sum of Rs.7,69,200/- and the accused issued a cheque bearing No.836761 dated 27.05.2007 for a sum of Rs.7,32,000/- drawn on ICICI Bank, Indira Nagar Branch, Bengaluru. He had promised and assured that the cheque would be honoured. When the same was presented, it was dishonoured with an endorsement "Funds insufficient". The complainant issued a legal notice to the address of the accused both by way of RPAD and UCP. The notice sent to the accused returned as "Addressee Left" dated 9.6.2007. The accused is deemed to have received the notice and has deliberately failed to comply with the demand. Without any other alternative remedy, the complainant has filed a complaint against the accused.