S.E. VIJAY Vs. H. MANJAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused in CC No.25789 of 2012 on the file of the learned XXV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court' for brevity), is impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 25/4/2017 convicting him for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'NI Act') and sentencing to pay fine of Rs.15,02,000.00, which was enhanced vide judgment dtd. 30/8/2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1026 of 2017 preferred by the complainant on the file of the learned LII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-53), (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court'), while dismissing Criminal Appeal No.779 of 2017 preferred by the accused.

(2.) The accused is challenging the dismissal of Criminal Appeal No.779 of 2017 by preferring Criminal Revision Petition No.1305 of 2019 and the judgment modifying the order of sentence passed in Criminal Appeal No.1026 of 2017 by preferring Criminal Revision Petition No.113 of 2020.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that, the complainant has filed private complaint in PCR No.140011 of 2012 before the Trial Court against the accused alleging commission of offence punishable under Sec. 138 of NI Act. It is contended that he is a retired Central Government employee having monthly pension. With an intention to start small business for the benefit of his unemployed son, the complainant wanted to invest in some business. The accused was owning a proprietary concern by name M/s.Toon Zone, a franchise of Ants Studio Pvt. Ltd. The father of the accused was having acquaintance with the complainant and it is stated that the accused is doing extremely well in the said business and lured the complainant to invest in the business of his son. Accordingly, the complainant agreed to invest as he was promised of huge percentage of business profit. It was agreed that the proprietary concern run by the accused would be converted into partnership business. The complainant invested an amount of Rs.25,00,000.00 by mortgaging his house property by way of reverse mortgage. An equal amount of contribution was said to have been made by the accused and his father. A partnership deed was entered into on 16/1/2009. It was registered on 2/2/2009 before the Registrar of partnership firm.