V.YOGANANDA Vs. ANNAPPA PRABHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal filed under Sec. 378(4) of Cr.P.C, is by the complainant challenging the acquittal of accused by the Sessions Court, thereby reversing his conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court for the offence under Sec. 138 of N.I.Act.

(2.) For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by their rank before the trial Court.

(3.) Complainant filed a private complaint under Sec. 200 Cr.P.C. against accused alleging offence punishable under Sec. 138 of N.I.Act. Complainant and accused are employees of BHEL. It is the case of the complainant that accused being the owner of site No.61, measuring 40' x 60' feet situated at REMKO House Building Society (BHEL), Pattanagere, Kengeri Hobli, agreed to sell the said site to complainant for a sum of Rs.5,00,000.00 and executed a sale agreement dtd. 14/8/2003 by receiving Rs.4,75,000.00 as advance. He agreed to execute the sale deed by receiving balance consideration of Rs.25,000.00 within a period of two months. 3.1 There was a covenant that if the purchaser fails to pay the balance and get the sale deed executed within a period of two months, the entire advance would be forfeited. On the other hand if accused fail to execute the sale deed, then he shall pay the double the advance amount to the complainant. Alleging that despite offering balance consideration of Rs.25,000.00, accused did not come forward to execute the sale deed. On the other hand he issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.9,50,000.00 being the double amount of advance received by him for his failure to execute the sale deed. The complainant has alleged that when he presented the cheque for encashment, it was returned with endorsement "funds insufficient". Therefore, after issuing legal notice and on failure of the accused to comply with the said notice, he filed the complaint.