SHAIKH SULEMAN SHAIKH RUSTAM Vs. LATA ANIL GANGWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties.

(2.) The applicant takes exception to the judgments and orders of conviction of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (Court No.16), Aurangabad, in SCC.No.3149 of 2019, dtd. 6/5/2022 and confirmed in Appeal No.69 of 2022, dtd. 16/11/2022 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad.

(3.) The "applicant" would be referred to as an "accused" and the "respondent" as the "complainant" for convenience. FACTS : The complainant had a case that the accused approached her through estate broker Shri. Bhimchand Govindrao Desai to purchase her landed property situated at Dhanegaon, Taluka Gangapur. After negotiation, the consideration was agreed upon and settled at Rs.56,50,000.00. An agreement to sale was also executed, and the mode of payment was by cheque. Hence, cheque numbers were written in the agreement. However, the accused did not sign the agreement. She, the broker and another witness signed it. The original agreement was handed over to the accused, and its copy was retained. The sale was to be executed within two months. Before executing the sale deed, the accused requested the complainant to show consideration for Rs.36,50,000.00. He promised to pay the balance consideration of Rs.20,00,000.00 in cash within a short period after selling some of the plots out of her land sold to him. He agreed if he would not pay the balance consideration in cash within fifteen days, the cheque bearing No.125856 drawn on the Cosmos Bank (disputed cheque) be presented for encashment. Surprisingly, the accused issued a notice to the complainant stating that the agreed consideration was Rs.36,50,000.00 and the cheque in dispute was delivered as a security to the complainant, as it was their first transaction. His notice was replied. The cheque in dispute was presented to her bank for encashment on 21/12/2018. However, the accused had instructed the bank to 'stop payment'. Hence, on 15/1/2019, a statutory notice was served upon the accused. The accused did not reply to the said notice.