Sri.P.Devaraj vs J Anand Kumar
2022 Latest Caselaw 3390 Kant

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

    DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                           BEFORE

THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY

   CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.312 OF 2018

BETWEEN:

Sri. P. Devaraj,
Son of Papanna,
Aged about 35 years,
No.256, Residing at:
Agalakote village,
Bettakote Post,
Devanahalli Taluk - 562 110
Bangalore Rural Dist.
                                               ..     Petitioner
(By Sri. Nagaraja K.R., Advocate)

AND:

J. Anand Kumar,
Son of Jayaramu,
Aged about 30 years,
Residing at Yaranagunte village,
Hasigala Post,
Hosakote Taluk - 562 114
Bangalore Rural District.
                                                    .. Respondent
(By Sri. D. Nagaraja Reddy, Advocate)

                                 ****
      This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397
read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
praying to set aside the judgment of conviction in
C.C.No.2929/2009 dated 06-07-2013 on the file of Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore District, Bangalore and also
                                                Crl.R.P.No.312/2018

                                2


the judgment of conviction confirmed by the VII Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore,
in Criminal Appeal No.32/2013 dated 30-12-2017, and the
petitioner may be acquitted, in the interest of justice and equity.

      This Criminal Revision Petition, having been heard and
reserved on 21-02-2022, coming on for pronouncement of
orders, this day, the Court made the following:

                           ORDER

The present petitioner as the accused was tried by the

Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Bangalore District, Bangalore (hereinafter for brevity referred to

as the "Trial Court") in C.C.No.2929/2009 for the offence

punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,

1881 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the N.I. Act") and

was convicted for the said offence by its judgment of conviction

and order on sentence dated 06-07-2013.

Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred a Criminal

Appeal in the Court of the VII Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, (hereinafter for

brevity referred to as the "Sessions Judge's Court") in Criminal

Appeal No.32/2013.

The appeal was contested by the respondent who was the

complainant in the Trial Court. The learned Sessions Judge's Crl.R.P.No.312/2018

Court in its judgment dated 30-12-2017 dismissed the appeal,

confirming the judgment of conviction and order on sentence

passed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.2929/2009.

Aggrieved by the said judgments, the accused has

preferred this revision petition.

2. The summary of the case of the complainant in the Trial

Court was that, he has been a businessman doing business at

Hosakote. The revision petitioner/accused was well known to

him. The accused approached him with an offer of selling a land

measuring 1 ¾ guntas in Sy.No.13/3, situate at Channahalli

Village, Channarayapattana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, for

consideration of a sum of `5,50,000/-. The complainant,

agreeing to the same, on an oral agreement, paid a sum of

`50,000/- by way of cash to the accused in the month of

May-2008. Subsequently, in the month of June-2008, the

complainant paid one more sum of `1,00,000/- on the basis of

the said oral agreement to the accused and collected two

General Power of Attorneys, standing in the name of the accused

pertaining to the said property, tax paid receipt, patta book,

index of land and some other documents.

Crl.R.P.No.312/2018

It is further contended by the complainant that, in the

month of June-2008, even though he approached the accused

with a request to execute the registered Sale Deed, the accused

postponed the same by giving some personal reasons.

Therefore, the complainant lost confidence upon the accused and

demanded him to return a total sum of `1,50,000/- paid to him.

In that connection, the accused issued two cheques to the

complainant bearing No.966561 dated 06-11-2008 for a sum of

`50,000/- and another cheque bearing No.966562 dated

25-11-2008 for a sum of `1,00,000/-, both drawn in favour of

the complainant, on Syndicate Bank, Devanahalli Branch. The

complainant presented the cheque bearing No.966561 dated

06-11-2008 which was for a sum of `50,000/- on 13-12-2008 for

its collection through his banker. However, the said cheques

came to be returned unpaid with the banker's endorsement

'funds insufficient'. The complainant met the accused and asked

him to clear his dues. However, the accused requested him to

present the cheques again. Accordingly, the complainant

presented both the cheques on 05-04-2009 through his banker

for their realisation. However, both the cheques came to be

returned with banker's endorsement dated 09-04-2009 as 'funds Crl.R.P.No.312/2018

insufficient'. It is thereafter the complainant got issued a legal

notice dated 17-04-2009 to the accused, demanding the

payment of the cheques' amount along with interest and

incidental charges within fifteen days from the date of receipt of

the notice. Though the notice was served upon the accused on

21-04-2009, however, the accused instead of meeting the

demand made in the notice, sent an untenable reply vide his

reply dated 25-04-2009. This constrained the complainant to

institute a complaint in the Trial Court against the accused for

the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

3. The accused contested the matter appearing through

his counsel.

4. To prove his case, the complainant got examined three

witnesses as PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 and got marked documents

from Exs.P-1 to P-13. The accused neither examined any

witnesses nor got marked any documents from his side.

The Trial Court after hearing the learned counsels from

both side and the evidence of the parties, by its impugned

judgment of conviction dated 06-07-2013 convicted the accused

for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and Crl.R.P.No.312/2018

sentenced him to pay a fine of `2,60,000/-, in default, to

undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

Challenging the same, the accused preferred an appeal in

Criminal Appeal No.32/2013, before the learned Session's

Judge's Court, which after hearing both side, by its judgment

dated 30-12-2017, dismissed the appeal while confirming the

judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court. Being

aggrieved by the same, the accused has preferred this revision

petition.

5. The complainant/respondent herein is being

represented by his counsel.

6. Learned counsel for the accused/revision petitioner and

learned counsel for the complainant/respondent are appearing

physically before the Court.

7. The Trial Court and Sessions Judge's Court's records

were called for and the same are placed before this Court.

8. Heard the arguments from both side. Perused the

materials placed before this Court including the Trial Court and

Sessions Judge's Court's records.

Crl.R.P.No.312/2018

9. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be

henceforth referred to as per their rankings before the Trial

Court.

10. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, the

only point that arises for my consideration in this revision

petition is:

Whether the judgments under revision are perverse, illegal and erroneous, warranting interference at the hands of this Court?

11. The complainant, in support of his complaint, got

himself examined as PW-1 and got examined one Sri. Rajashekar

and one Sri. Ramanjinappa as PW-2 and PW-3 respectively. All

these three witnesses, in their evidence have stated that, the

accused, agreeing to sell a piece of land in favour of the

complainant, had received a sum of `50,000/- and thereafter,

another sum of `1,00,000/-, thus in total `1,50,000/- as an

advance sale consideration in the months of May-2008 and

June-2008. However, the accused did not execute the Sale Deed

and, on demand made by the complainant, he issued the subject Crl.R.P.No.312/2018

matter two cheques to the complainant towards the refund of the

advance amount received by him.

The complainant, as PW-1, in support of his evidence, got

marked two cheques which were returned unpaid at Exs.P-1 and

P-2, banker's endorsements at Exs.P-3 to P-5, copy of the legal

notice sent by him to the accused at Ex.P-6, postal receipt and

acknowledgement at Exs.P-7 and P-8 respectively, reply sent by

accused to the notice, at Ex.P-9, two General Power of Attorneys

(GPAs) standing in favour of the accused at Exs.P-10 and P-11

and tax paid receipt and a patta Book at Exs.P-12 and P-13

respectively.

PW-1 (complainant) in addition to the above also stated

that the intention of the accused was only to deceive and defraud

him.

PW-2 has stated that he knows both the complainant and

the accused since both of them were his good friends. It was

him, who introduced accused to the complainant long back. He

further stated that, he was very much present during all the

transactions.

Crl.R.P.No.312/2018

PW-3 stated that he knows both the complainant and the

accused and that all the transactions took place in his business

premises at Hosakote.

All these three witnesses were subjected to a detailed

cross-examination from the accused's side.

12. In the light of the above, it was the argument of the

learned counsel for the accused/revision petitioner that, PW-2

and PW-3 are created witnesses by the complainant about whom

there is no whisper in the complaint. It was for the first time,

the complainant brought them as his witnesses only at the stage

of evidence, as such, their evidence is not believable. He further

submitted that the complainant has not proved his financial

capacity to lend such a huge sum of money, on the other hand,

though he contended that he has got documents to show his

financial capacity to lend money, but he has not produced them.

Similarly, PW-2 and PW-3 also have stated that, with respect to

alleged two advance amounts said to have been paid by the

complainant, there are documentation like entry in the Diary

and also an agreement and though they said that they could able

to produce them, still, no documents were produced by them, as

such, the entire case of the complainant is suspicious. He also Crl.R.P.No.312/2018

submitted that the description of an immovable property with

respect to which alleged Agreement of Sale is said to have been

entered into between the parties varies from the complainant to

PW-2 and PW-3. They have given different survey numbers. As

such, the entire alleged transaction between the complainant and

accused itself proves to be a concocted story. However, the Trial

Court, without even observing that there is successful rebuttal of

the presumption that was formed in favour of the complainant,

has erroneously convicted the accused for the alleged guilt.

Hence, the impugned judgments under appeal are liable to be

set aside.

13. Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant in his

argument submitted that, no specific suggestion was made to

PW-1, doubting his financial capacity to lend money. Though

there is difference in mentioning the survey number of the

property, but the same is a typographical error. He further

submitted that the defence of the accused varies from his reply

to the notice to the one taken in the cross-examination of

prosecution witnesses. Stating that the possession of the

original documents like Power of Attorneys by the complainant

themselves prove that the accused had received advance Crl.R.P.No.312/2018

amounts from the complainant agreeing to sell the property and

as such, the complainant has proved the guilt of the accused for

the alleged offences, learned counsel submitted that the

judgments of conviction under appeal do not warrant any

interference at the hands of this Court.

14. The evidence of PW-1 (complainant) that the accused

was a person well known to him has not been specifically denied

from the accused's side in the cross-examination of PW-1. Even

PW-2 also has stated that both the complainant and accused

were his good friends and that it was him who introduced the

accused to the complainant. In the cross-examination of PW-2,

it was further suggested to the witness that the accused was his

friend from the time of their college education, for which the

witness has admitted the said suggestion as true. The said

evidence of PW-2 makes it clear that the complainant and

accused were known to each other. Even PW-3 also has stated

that the complainant knew the accused. As such, it stands

established that the complainant and accused were known to

each other even prior to the alleged transaction between them.

Crl.R.P.No.312/2018

15. It is an admitted fact that the cheques at Exs.P-1 and

P-2 were drawn by the accused and that they were presented for

their realisation by the complainant through his banker. It is

also not in dispute that those two cheques when presented for

their realisation came to be dis-honoured with the banker's

endorsement of insufficiency of funds which are at Exs.P-3, P-4

and P-5. It is also not in dispute that after dishonour of the

cheques, the complainant got issued a legal notice dated

17-04-2009 to the accused as per the copy of it at Ex.P-6. The

said notice was sent to the accused under Registered Post

Acknowledgement Due (RPAD) as evidenced under Ex.P-7 which

is a postal receipt. It is also not in dispute that the said notice

was served to the accused as evidenced in the postal

acknowledgement card at Ex.P-8, for which the accused sent a

reply as per Ex.P-9. These undisputed facts creates a

presumption under Section 139 of the N.I Act in favour of the

complainant about the existence of a legally enforceable debt,

however, the said presumption is rebuttable.

16. In order to rebut the presumption, the accused neither

entered into the witness box by himself nor examined any

witnesses from his side nor even produced any documents and Crl.R.P.No.312/2018

got them marked as exhibits. However, he has subjected PW-1,

PW-2, PW-3 to a detailed cross-examination, where he has made

attempts to rebut the presumption formed under Section 139 of

the N.I. Act and also to shake the evidence of PW-1, PW-2,

PW-3. Needless to say that in order to rebut the presumption

formed in favour of the complainant under Section 139 of the

N.I. Act, it is not mandatory that the accused should either

examine himself as a witness or examine any witnesses from his

side. If he could able to rebut the presumption in the cross-

examination of the complainant and his witnesses or by

confronting any documents to the complainant and his witnesses

and thus creates a doubt in the case of the complainant

regarding the existence of a legally enforceable debt, then the

presumption that was formed in favour of the complainant can

be said to have been rebutted.

17. The very contention of the complainant was that, it

was accepting the proposal of the accused that he has intended

to sell a land measuring 1 ¾ guntas in Survey No.13/3, situate

at Channahalli village, Channarayapattana Hobli, Devanahalli

Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, for a consideration of a sum of

`5,50,000/-, he(complainant) had paid initially a sum of Crl.R.P.No.312/2018

`50,000/- by way of cash to the accused in May-2008 and then

in the month of June-2008, at the request of the accused, he

gave him a further sum of `1,00,000/- on the basis of the very

same oral agreement. It is also his case that, at that time, the

accused gave him documents like two General Power of

Attorneys standing in favour of the accused pertaining to the said

property, patta book and tax paid receipt, which documents the

complainant got produced and marked them as Ex.P-10, P-11,

P-12 and P-13. The accused specifically denied that he had ever

agreed to sell any land, much less the one alleged by the

complainant, to the complainant for any consideration. Thus, he

has taken a contention that he had never approached the

complainant for the transaction of land and has never received

any sum of money from him. The said contention, at the

earliest point of time, was taken up by the accused, in the reply

to the legal notice sent to him by the accused. The said reply is

at Ex.P-9. Suggestions to the said effect were also made in the

cross-examination of PW-1 from the accused's side.

18. The complainant in his support also got examined

PW-2 and PW-3. Among these two, PW-2 claims himself to be a

common friend for both the complainant and the accused and Crl.R.P.No.312/2018

PW-3 has stated that he is the brother-in-law of the complainant.

When PW-2 has stated that he was very much present during all

the transactions between complainant and the accused, PW-3

has stated that all the transactions between the complainant and

the accused have taken place in his business premises at

Hosakote. However, the accused has denied the said evidence of

PW-2 and PW-3 in their cross-examination, by making several

denial suggestions and also has elicited some statements, which

draws the attention of the Court in arriving at a finding as to the

alleged transaction between the parties.

19. According to the complainant, the identify of the land

which the accused offered to sell to him was, land in Survey

Number 13/3, situate at Channahalli village, Channarayapattana

Hobli. The complainant, both in his complainant as well in his

examination-in-chief in the form of affidavit evidence has

specifically mentioned the said Survey Number as '13/3'.

However, PW-2, who claims that he was present during all the

transactions between the complainant and the accused, has

stated that, the land which the accused proposed to sell to the

complainant was, the land bearing Survey Number '11/3', though

said to be situated at Channahalli village. Even PW-3, who does Crl.R.P.No.312/2018

not specifically state that he was present at the time of all the

alleged transactions between the complainant and the accused,

but stated that, all the transactions had taken place in his

business premises at Hoskote, also has stated that, the land

proposed to be sold by the accused to the complainant was the

land bearing Survey Number '11/3' situated at Channahalli

village. Thus, according to the complainant, the proposed land

to be sold to him was of a different survey number than the one

stated by PW-2 and PW-3. For that matter, even the legal

notice at Ex.P-6 sent by the complainant to the accused also

mentions the survey number of the land as '13/3' only, but not

as '11/3'. Therefore, there is a greater discrepancy with respect

to the identity of the land alleged to be proposed by the accused

for sale to the complainant.

Even though the learned counsel for the complainant/

respondent, in his argument, submitted that the same is a

typographical error, but the said argument cannot be accepted

for the reason that, it is the duty of the complainant to make

clear, specific and accurate statement about the alleged facts in

his complaint and he is not expected to make a wrong statement

and subsequently in a revision, at the third stage of litigation, Crl.R.P.No.312/2018

cannot attempt to cover it up in the argument, calling it as a

typographical mistake. The alleged Power of Attorneys at

Ex.P-10 and P-11, which according to the complainant were

standing in favour of the accused and were handed over to him,

also shows the survey number of the land not as '13/3', but they

mention the survey number as '11/3' of Channahalli village.

Therefore, the description of the survey number of the property

which was very much material in giving a finding regarding the

alleged transaction between the complainant and the accused

since being inaccurate and ambiguous, the same leads to

doubt the contention of the complainant about the existence of

such property dealing transaction itself between the complainant

and the accused.

20. Secondly, the complainant has identified himself as a

businessman. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he

runs a Glass and Plywood shop at a place called Hosakote. He

has also stated that he has not collected any documents from the

accused nor even a receipt from the accused for having paid

such a huge amount to the accused. The said statement of the

complainant that merely because the accused is said to be his

friend, he did not collect any documents or receipts with respect Crl.R.P.No.312/2018

to giving the accused a sum of `1,50,000/-, is difficult to believe.

As a businessman, PW-1 (complainant) is expected to have the

knowledge of the transaction involving large sums of money.

Merely, he possessing two General Power of Attorneys, a patta

book and a tax paid receipt at Exs.P-10 to P-13, by themselves is

not sufficient to hold that the accused had delivered those

documents, agreeing to sell some immovable property to the

complainant.

21. Thirdly, a perusal of Exs.P-10 and P-11, which are two

General Power of Attorneys also would go to show that those two

General Power of Attorneys are said to have been executed by

some third parties claiming themselves to be the owners of small

bits of land, in favour of the accused authorising him to manage

those two bits of land in Sy.No.11/3 of Channahalli village,

including alienating the said property in the form of mortgage,

lease or sale. Thus admittedly, none of the documents at

Exs.P-10 to P-13 are documents of title. Furthermore, none of

those documents confer any title even upon the accused. In

such an event, it is very difficult to believe that, the complainant

(PW-1) himself claiming to be a business man, accepting those Crl.R.P.No.312/2018

documents and keeping them with him, has given a total sum of

`1,50,000/- to the accused.

22. Fourthly, the evidence of PW-2, who, even according

to PW-1, is his relative and the evidence of PW-3, who is the

brother-in-law of PW-1, would not further strengthen the case of

the complainant. Admittedly, both of them are relatives of the

complainant. Even though PW-2 has stated that he was very

much present during all the transactions between the

complainant and the accused, but he has not stated as to where,

when and how the alleged transaction has taken place between

the complainant and the accused.

Similarly, PW-3 has not specifically stated that he was

present at the time of the alleged transaction between the

complainant and the accused, but has only stated that, all

transactions took place in his business premises at Hosakote. By

that itself, it cannot be inferred that PW-3 was physically present

when the alleged monetary transaction, totalling a sum of

`1,50,000/- was said to have taken place between the

complainant and the accused.

Crl.R.P.No.312/2018

However, both the Trial Court as well as the learned

Sessions Judge's Court, in their reasoning on the point, have

observed that, since the cheques at Exs.P-1 and P-2 are drawn

by the accused, which subsequently came to be dis-honoured

and since the complainant has produced Exs.P-10 to P-13 with

him, the alleged agreement for sale of property by the accused

to the complainant can be inferred. But the said reasoning has

to be held as erroneous, in the light of the analysis made above,

that too, the complainant (PW-1) being a businessman, not

maintaining any documents and not entering into any written

agreement for the alleged purchase of an immovable property.

23. Fifthly, though PW-2 and PW-3 have stated that they

are aware of the transaction between the complainant and the

accused and PW-2 has gone to the extent of stating that, he was

present at the time of all the transactions between the

complainant and the accused, but the very complainant himself,

either in his complaint or in his evidence as PW-1, has not stated

about the same. Had really PW-2 been present during those

alleged monetary transactions between the complainant and the

accused and PW-3 was either present or aware of those

transactions, then, definitely PW-1 (complainant) should have Crl.R.P.No.312/2018

mentioned about the same at the earliest point of time. The

non-mentioning about PW-2 and PW-3 by the complainant in his

complaint as well in his evidence as PW-1 also creates a serious

doubt in the case of the complainant.

24. Sixthly, PW-2 in his cross-examination has stated that,

there is an entry in the Diary regarding `1,50,000/- paid to the

accused. The said Diary is maintained at Byraveshwara Plywood,

Hosakote, belonging to Ramanjinappa (PW-3) and that the

recipient of the amount has signed in the said diary. Similarly,

PW-3 also in his cross-examination, has stated that with respect

to the receipt of `50,000/- as a token advance from the

complainant, the accused has noted it down in his own

handwriting in the last page of the Diary maintained by him

(PW-3) and for advancing another sum of `1,00,000/- in favour

of the accused, the complainant himself has entered into an

agreement. The witness has further stated that he has no

impediment to show those documents maintained in this regard.

However, neither PW-2 nor PW-3 has produced those documents

in the Court. Nothing had prevented PW-1 (complainant) to

secure those documents from PW-2 and PW-3 who are his

relatives and also the alleged witnesses to the transactions and Crl.R.P.No.312/2018

produce them before the Court, which the complainant has not

done. Therefore, when the accused has specifically denied the

alleged transaction with the complainant, on the other hand,

stated that the documents at Exs.P-1, Ex.P-2 and Exs.P-10 to 13

were lost by him when he had been to the shop of PW-2 and

were misused by the complainant, then the complainant in order

to falsify the said contention of the accused should have

produced those documents mentioned by PW-2 and PW-3 in his

support. However, the complainant, without producing those

documents, has himself stated that there are no documents

pertaining to the alleged amount paid to the accused. Thus, it

creates a serious doubt in the case of the complainant about he

passing on a consideration in return of the cheques at Exs.P-1

and P-2 and about the existence of a legally enforceable debt in

favour of the complainant.

25. Lastly, the accused has also suspected the financial

capacity of the complainant to lend such a huge amount to him.

In that regard, even though the accused has not specifically

made any suggestion to the complainant that the complainant

did not have financial capacity to lend money, but has elicited

from PW-1 (complainant) in his cross-examination that the Crl.R.P.No.312/2018

complainant has not furnished any documents to show that he

was in possession of cash of a total sum of `1,50,000/- during

May-2008 and June-2008. PW-1 (complainant), in response to

the said suggestion, gave an answer that, he has documents to

that effect and that he can produce them. However, the

complainant (PW-1) did not produce any piece of document to

show that he had financial capacity to give `1,50,000/- to the

accused in the alleged months. Since the complainant claims

himself to be a businessman, he is required to maintain Books of

Accounts and maintain all accounts in a proper form that would

be expected of a businessman. In such a circumstance, the

statement of PW-1 that, on an oral agreement he paid a sum of

`50,000/- at the first instance and thereafter another sum of

`1,00,000/- to the accused, without there being any

documentation in that regard, is hard to believe. Therefore,

mere possession of two cheques drawn by the accused which are

at Exs.P-1 and P-2 and their dis-honour by the drawee banker

for the reason of insufficiency of funds itself is not sufficient to

hold that the complainant had paid a sum of `1,50,000/- to the

accused, as such, the cheques at Exs.P-1 and P-2 were given to

him by the accused and that there existed a legally enforceable Crl.R.P.No.312/2018

debt in favour of the complainant. On the other hand,

irrespective of some variation in the defence taken up by the

accused at the first instance in his reply to the notice, to the one

he has taken during the course of trial in the Trial Court, still, he

has successfully rebutted the presumption formed in favour of

the complainant under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. In such a

situation, when the presumption about the legally enforceable

debt has stood rebutted, it was for the complainant to prove the

alleged liability of the accused under those two cheques in his

favour, which the complainant has failed to do.

However, both the Trial Court as well the Sessions Judge's

Court have not properly appreciated the evidence in their proper

perspective, on the other hand, as observed above, merely

observing that the cheques at Exs.P-1 and P-2 were drawn by

the accused and that they were dis-honoured and also observing

that the possession of General Power of Attorneys at Exs.P-10

and P-11 by the complainant proves the alleged transaction

between the complainant and the accused, have erroneously

held the accused guilty of the alleged offence punishable under

Section 138 of the N.I. Act. As such, the judgments of Crl.R.P.No.312/2018

conviction under appeal warrants interference at the hands of

this Court.

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

[i] The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed;

[ii] The impugned judgment of conviction and order

on sentence dated 06-07-2013, passed by the

learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Bangalore District, Bangalore, in C.C.No.2929/2009,

holding the accused guilty of the offence punishable

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments

Act, 1881, and sentencing him for the alleged

offence, is set aside;

Consequently, the judgment passed by the VII

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore

Rural District, Bangalore, dated 30-12-2017, in

Criminal Appeal No.32/2013, is also set aside.

[iii] The accused - Sri. P. Devaraj, Son of

Papanna, Aged about 35 years, No.256, Residing at:

Agalakote village, Bettakote Post, Devanahalli Taluk-

562 110, Bangalore Rural District, is acquitted of the Crl.R.P.No.312/2018

offence punishable under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Registry to transmit a copy of this order to both the Trial

Court and also the Sessions Judge's Court along with their

respective records forthwith.

Sd/-

JUDGE

BMV*