A.S. PRASAD Vs. HARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is preferred by the petitioner/accused challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated 09.01.2015 passed by the XVI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City, in C.C.No.12563/2011 and also the judgment and order dated 09.07.2015 passed by the LVI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, in Crl.A.145/2015.

(2.) Brief facts leading to filing of the case by the complainant before the trial Court are that the complainant and the accused are known to each other. The accused along with his parents entered into a sale agreement dated 19.01.2009 in respect of sale of 4.25 acres of land for sale consideration of Rs.20,64,375.00 and took advance amount of Rs.5,50,000.00 on 19.01.2009 and Rs.2,00,000.00 through cheque on 24.01.2009, Rs.4,50,000.00 on 103.2009 and Rs.2,00,000.00 on 30.10.2009, so in all, Rs.14,00,000.00 was collected by the accused and his parents as advance amount out of sale consideration. After completion of stipulated time, accused and his parents failed to register the sale deed in favour of the complainant because of difference of opinion in their family and the accused got issued cheque bearing No.771732 dated 10.12010 for a sum of Rs.7,00,000.00 and another cheque bearing No.771733 dated 10.12010 for Rs.7,00,000.00 both the cheques were drawn on Canara Bank, BSK III Stage Branch, Bengaluru, in favour of the complainant. When complainant presented those two cheques for encashment through his banker Corporation Bank, Basavanagudi Branch, Bengaluru, same came to be dishonoured with an endorsement 'Account Inoperative/Dormant' as per the bank endorsement dated 11.01.2011. Thereafter, complainant got issued legal notice to the accused through RPAD as well as UCP on 17.01.2011, and the notice sent through RPAD was returned with a shara I/D not claimed, but the notice sent through UCP is deemed to be served and in spite of that, accused neither paid the cheque amount nor replied the notice. The accused knowing fully well and with an intention to cheat the complainant had issued the said cheque towards the repayment of sale consideration amount borrowed by him and thereby the accused has committed the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act.

(3.) Thereafter, the evidence on both sides have been recorded. The complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and produced 10 documents marked as Exs.P-1 to P-10. On the side of accused, three witnesses were examined as D.Ws.1 to 3 and documents Exs.D-1 to D- 7 got marked. As per the defence set-up by the accused, he denied the transaction of agreement of sale, but according to his contention, it was a loan transaction and both the cheques were issued as security for the said loan transaction. Hence, he denied the allegations made in the complaint. After concluding the trial and perusing the oral as well as documentary evidence produced in the case, ultimately the trial Court held that the petitioner is guilty of the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.18,00,000.00 (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs only) and in default, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year.