NAGARAJ H Vs. SHIVAPRAKASH RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the criminal complaints filed by the present appellants in the Court of the learned XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and XXIV Additional Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru City (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'trial Court'), in C.C.Nos.9990/2007 and 10143/2007 respectively, which complaints were filed against the present respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'N.I.Act'), the trial Court by its judgments dated 07.08.2010 acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the said judgments of acquittal the complainants have preferred these appeals.

(2.) Both these appeals are against the very same accused / respondent. However, the appellants are stated to be the brothers and alleged issuance of cheques to them by the respondent is also said to be under a single transaction with the complainants, as such, both these appeals are shown as connected appeals and have been taken up for disposal under this common judgment.

(3.) The summary of the case of the complainants in the trial Court is that they are the co-owners along with their father Sri.Pillappa, his brothers, uncles and their sons, of the converted land bearing Sy.No.69 of Sreegandadakaval village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. In the said land, an extent of 3 acres 8 guntas was sold to the respondent / accused under a registered sale deed dated 19.05.2006. Towards balance sale consideration of Rs. 20,00,000/-, the accused has issued two post dated cheques for Rs. 10,00,000/- each, bearing Nos.393754 and 393755 dated 15.07.2006 and 25.07.2006 respectively. Those cheques were duly filled up except the name of the payee as there are the 14 vendors or the owners of the said property. The said cheques were delivered in favour of the senior member / vendor of the said property Sri.Pillappa along with the covering letter / indemnity letter on the date of registration of the sale deed. The cheques could have been presented by any one of the co-owners of the property under sale. Accordingly, those two cheques were presented by the present appellants as the one each for realisation, however, both the cheques returned with Banker's endorsement 'funds insufficient'. Thereafter, the complainants got issued legal notice through their advocate demanding the payment of the cheque amount. The respondent sent an untenable reply to the legal notice, but, did not meet the demand made in the demand notice, which constrained the complainants to institute the cases against him.