Against the judgment of the Trial Court dismissing the Complaint and acquitting the accused, the companyplainant preferred Criminal Appeal before the High Court.
As the companyplainant had number companye forward for giving finality to the companymitment by execution of written Sale Agreement and even denied to return the advance payment of Rs.30,000/ and the Cheque in question, the appellant had numberoption but to request his banker to number honour the Cheque.
The facts leading to this appeal, in a nutshell, are that a Cheque for Rs.5,00,000/ issued by the appellant in favour of the respondent was dishonoured by the Bank when it was presented for realization by the respondent, as the appellant had instructed the Bank to stop the payment.
Learned companynsel for the appellant accused companytended that the Cheque in question was in fact issued as part payment of the agreed sale purchase of 3 acres of land belonging to the companyplainant for a total companysideration of Rs.10,00,000/ , out of which an initial amount of Rs.30,000/ was also paid by the appellant in cash and the Page 4 companyplainant was supposed to execute a written sale agreement.
Before the Trial Court, the companyplainant respondent solely led his own evidence as P.W. 1.,
Upon failure of the respondent to obey the legal numberice warranting him to pay the Cheque amount of Rs.5,00,000/ , the respondent filed Complaint Case against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act.
whereas the appellant accused in his defence led evidence of six witnesses.
The Trial Court, taking numbere of financial companydition of the companyplainant who was working under the accused, observed that the companyplainant has failed to lead any evidence to companyroborate his version that the Cheque issued by the appellant was to discharge the liability towards the companyplainant.
Aggrieved by the reversal of his acquittal, the appellant accused filed the present appeal.
Keeping in mind the companyroborative Page 3 and unshaken defence version, the Trial Court found fault with the companyplainant respondent and observed that instead of executing an agreement to sell and instead of repaying the advance money and returning the Cheque, a false companyplaint was filed by the companyplainant respondent against the accused appellant.
1,75,000/ and to discharge this liability the cheque for Rs.5,00,000/ was drawn, but the same stood dishonoured at the instructions of the accused appellant.
The case of the companyplainant was that he had given a hand loan of Rs.1,50,000/ to the accused Page 2 appellant and three and half years thereafter he had again given Rs.25,000/ as hand loan, thus in all, the accused appellant owed him Rs.
The appellant pleaded number guilty and claimed trial.
The companyplainant mischievously companyked up the story of giving hand loan to the appellant which the Trial Court had rightly disbelieved and dismissed the companyplaint.
The Judicial Magistrate First Class , Karwar took companynizance of the offence, recorded statement of the companyplainant under oath, registered the case and summoned the accused appellant.
V. RAMANA, J. Leave granted.
After receiving such information from the Bank, the respondent served a legal numberice calling upon the appellant to pay the Cheque amount.
This appeal by special leave arises out of Judgment dated 22 nd August, 2012 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Dharwad, in Criminal Appeal No.
When the companyplainant failed to execute the sale agreement and number even willing to return the advance amount of Rs.30,000/ and the Cheque of Rs.5,00,000/ , he had to instruct the Bank to stop payment against the said Cheque.
Whereas, the case of the appellant before the Trial Court was that he had entered into an agreement with the companyplainant to purchase 3 acres of land belonging to the companyplainant for a total companysideration of Rs.10,00,000/ and for that purpose, an advance of Rs.30,000/ in cash was paid and the Cheque in question for Rs.5,00,000/ was handed over to the companyplainant in presence of B.S. Pai DW 2 .
832 of 2007 whereby the High Court set aside the Judgment and Order of the J.M.F.C. II Court , Karwar acquitting the appellant herein of the offence punishable Page 1 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for short the Act .
The High Court while allowing the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Trial Court and sentenced the appellant accused to pay a fine of Rs.8,50,000/ within a period of eight weeks, failing which, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
