PODAMADA N. APPAIAH Vs. T.A. BALAKRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent though served, unrepresented.

(2.) This appeal is filed by the complainant against the dismissal of C.C.No.1048/2015 acquitting the accused. The case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that the accused is known to the complainant for many years, in the month of June 2009, the accused approached and asked the complainant to purchase his property for total consideration of Rs.15,00,000.00. Accordingly the accused executed a sale agreement in favour of the complainant and received Rs.15,00,000.00 cash from the complainant. The accused promised the complainant that he would get ready the documents for registration in the month of November 2015. In the meantime, the accused tried to alienate the property, hence the complainant published a public notice in newspaper on 24/11/2015 stating his objection for the sale of property. That on 26/11/2015 the accused approached the complainant, requested him to cancel the sale agreement and issued a Cheque for Rs.15,00,000.00. Accordingly the complainant agreed to cancel the said agreement subject to encashment of the Cheque. When the said Cheque was presented for collection, the same was dishonored with an endorsement 'Funds Insufficient'. The complainant caused a legal notice calling upon the accused to pay the amount covered under the Cheque. The notice was served to the accused, he gave untenable reply and the accused has not repaid the amount covered under the Cheque. Hence, the complaint was filed. The Trial Court taken cognizance and the accused was secured and he did not plead guilty and hence faced the trial. In order to prove the case of the complainant, he has been examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 and accused was subjected to 313 statement and thereafter accused lead his evidence and he has been examined as DW1 and got marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D6.

(3.) The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record particularly the admission given by PW1 in cross-examination which is extracted in paragraph Nos.8 to 14 the admission of PW1 and comes to the conclusion that the very transaction of sale agreement itself is doubtful and also comes to the conclusion to pay the amount of Rs.15,00,000.00 he was not having the amount since he had admitted in the year 2008 itself and he had borrowed the loan from the bank and hence it is clear that he was not having any sufficient money to purchase the property and also according to him, the agreement was entered between the parties in terms of Ex.P6 but on demand only Cheque was issued in the year 2015 which is subject matter of the case. The very transaction itself is doubtful and also payment of Rs.15,00,000.00 and hence, not accepted the case of the complainant and hence dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed before this Court.