Smt. B T Sridevi, Vs Sri B N Nagarajaiah

…RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT OF CONVICTION AND OF SENTENCE DATED 09.10.2024 IN CC.NO.3282/2021 PASSED BY THE XVIII ACJM, BENGALURU CITY CONFIRMING JUDGEMENT DATED 03.10.2025 IN

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:46845 CRL.RP No. 1708 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

CRL.A.NO.559/2025 PASSED BY THE LIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-60) BENGALURU CITY.

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Challenging order of conviction and sentence dated 09.10.2024 passed by XVIII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City, in C.C.no.3282/2021, confirmed in judgment dated 03.10.2025 passed by LIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, in Crl.A.no.559/2025, this Revision Petition is filed.

¶23

Sri S. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that Revision Petition is against concurrent erroneous decisions convicting petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (' N.I. Act ').

¶24

It was submitted respondent - complainant had filed

¶25

a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. stating that he was working in BESCOM and had entered into an agreement of

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:46845 CRL.RP No. 1708 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

sale on 02.02.2018 and Memorandum of Understanding ( MOU ) on 03.05.2018 for purchase of property belonging to accused and had paid Rs.40,00,000/-. Thereafter accused failed to hand over original title deeds of property, while complainant was ready to pay balance sale consideration and accused did not execute sale deed. Thereafter property was auctioned by Bank, which was suppressed by accused. And when complainant demanded return of advance amount paid and got issued legal notice, accused came forward for settlement and issued cheque bearing no.000008 dated 20.05.2019 for Rs.14,00,000/- drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Sahakara Nagar Branch, Bengaluru, which when presented returned with endorsement 'Funds Insufficient' on 17.08.2019 and thereafter even when demand notice got issued by complainant, which was duly served on accused, he failed to repay amount thereby committed offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act.

¶30

It was submitted, after appearance, accused denied

¶31

charges and sought trial. And complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8. It was submitted, on

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:46845 CRL.RP No. 1708 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

appraisal of incriminating material accused denied same and his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. Since accused had substantiated his defence in cross-examination of complainant that cheque in question was issued as security for agreement of sale / MOU, same was mis-used by complainant and there was no legally enforceable debt. It was submitted, dispute between parties was civil in nature and complainant was required to file a civil suit for specific performance. However, Trial Court and First Appellate Court without proper consideration proceeded to convict accused. It is submitted, since impugned judgments suffered from perversity, he prayed for setting aside of same, this Revision Petition is filed.

¶35

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused impugned judgments.

¶36

It is seen that this Revision Petition is by accused against concurrent findings and conviction for offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander & Anr. reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460, has held scope for interference under Section 397 Cr.P.C. against concurrent findings would be

¶37

5 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:46845 CRL.RP No. 1708 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

limited to examine whether findings are contrary to a statute or suffer from perversity.

¶41

It is contended that cheque was issued as security

¶42

at time of agreement of sale/MOU. While passing impugned judgment, Trial Court has taken note of said defence and admission of execution of agreement of sale and MOU between parties as well as signature of accused on cheque and its issuance to complainant.

¶43

It is observed that apart from same, there was no material to indicate that cheques were issued towards security and not towards legally enforceable debt. It is held time and again that mere adoption of contention that cheque was issued towards security would be sufficient to upset presumption available under N.I. Act.

¶44

In absence of any material, reasoning of both Courts as well as finding cannot stated to be suffering from perversity. Hence, no grounds made out for interference. Revision Petition is dismissed.

¶45