Sanjay Ramesh Sachdev Vs Radhika G Thakural

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:9355 CRL.RP No. 1417 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1417 OF 2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SANJAY RAMESH SACHDEV SACHDEV S/O RAMESH MURALIDHAR SACHDEV AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS PROPRIETOR: M/S JAY ASSOCIATES NO.7/1 GROUND FLOOR, 3RD CROSS ANNAYAPPA BLOCK KUMARAPARK, BENGALURU - 560 020.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI SACHIN K NAIK, AMICUS CURAIE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

RADHIKA G. THAKURAL W/O GOVINDA BHEARILAL THAKURLAL AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS FLAT F-401, HTC TAHKURLAL TILK NO.818, CHINNANA LAYOUT 1ST MAIN ROAD KAVAL BYRASANDRA R.T. NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 032.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI GOPAL SINGH, ADV.)

¶15

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.09.2023 PASSED BY THE LIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE BENGALURU CITY IN CRL.A.NO.560/2023 CONFIRMED THE SENTENCED PASSED IN C.C.NO.13947/2019 CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR THE

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:9355 CRL.RP No. 1417 of 2023

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S. 138 OF N.I. ACT AND ORDERING DATED 29.03.2023 IN XV ACCM COURT AT BANGALORE TO PAY FINE AMOUNT OF RS.85,10,000 AND TO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Accused is before this Court in this criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to set-aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 29.03.2023 passed in CC No.13947/2019, by the Court of XV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City and the judgment and order dated 14.09.2023 passed in Crl.A.No.560/2023 by the Court of LIX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

¶24

Heard the learned Amicus Curiae on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶25

Respondent herein had initiated proceedings against the petitioner before the jurisdictional Court of Magistrate at

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:9355 CRL.RP No. 1417 of 2023

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

Bengaluru in CC No.13947/2019 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It is the specific case of the respondent that she owns a joint bank account along with her husband Sri. Govinda Beharilal Thakural, in Canara Bank, Madhavanagar Branch, Bengaluru, and from the said bank account, she had totally paid a sum of Rs.82,00,000/to the petitioner herein through bank transactions on various dates. Towards repayment of the said amount, petitioner had issued three cheques, the particulars of which are as follows:-

¶30

(i) Cheque bearing No.000400 dated 01.03.2019 for a sum of Rs.5 lakhs.

¶31

(ii) Cheque bearing No.000401 dated 12.03.2019 for a sum of Rs.5 lakhs.

¶32

(iii) Cheque bearing No.000402 dated 22.03.2019 for a sum of Rs.72 lakhs.

¶33

All the cheques were drawn on HDFC Bank, Sheshadripuram Branch, Bengaluru in favour of the respondent. The said cheques on presentation for realisation were dishonoured by the drawee bank for the reason "funds insufficient". Thereafter, statutory legal notice was got issued

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:9355 CRL.RP No. 1417 of 2023

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

on behalf of respondent and since the amount covered under

¶38

the cheques in question were not paid by the petitioner, proceedings under the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, was initiated by the respondent before the Trial Court in CC No.13947/2019. In the said case, complainant had examined herself as PW1 and had got marked 10 documents as Ex.P1 to P10. On behalf of the defence, petitioner had examined himself as DW1 and two other witnesses were examined as DW2 and DW3. Ten documents were got marked as Ex.D1 to D10 on behalf of the defence. The Trial Court, after hearing the arguments addressed on both sides and also appreciating the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, had convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.85,10,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. The said judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in CC No.13947/2019 was confirmed by the Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.560/2023 by judgment and order dated 14.09.2023. It is under these circumstances, petitioner is before this Court.

¶39

5 -

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:9355 CRL.RP No. 1417 of 2023

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

Learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the

¶43

petitioner submits that Courts below have failed to properly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence available on record and have erred in convicting the petitioner for the alleged offence. He submits that the amount received by the petitioner from the bank account of the respondent was transferred on the very same day to the account of the Company which belongs to the husband of the respondent. Petitioner had entered into an agreement with the said Company for the purpose of purchase of an apartment and till date, Company has not executed any sale deed in favour of the petitioner nor the money paid under the Agreement for Sale at Ex.D1 is repaid. He submits that in addition to the aforesaid payment, even the housing loan that was sanctioned by LIC Housing Finance Ltd., under the Tripartite Agreement was directly released to the account of the Company in terms of the Tripartite Agreement at Ex.D2. Therefore, it cannot be said that the cheques in question were issued towards repayment of the amount borrowed. He submits that the cheques in question

¶44

6 -

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:9355 CRL.RP No. 1417 of 2023

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

were issued as a security under the Tripartite Agreement and accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

¶48

Per contra, learned counsel for the

¶49

respondent/complainant has argued in support of the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below. He submits that amounts were transferred from the joint account of the respondent to the bank account of the petitioner prior to execution of Ex.D1 and D2. Respondent has nothing to do with the Company with which petitioner has entered into an agreement for sale as per Ex.D1. The transaction between the petitioner and the respondent is proved by Ex.P10. Petitioner has filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale at Ex.D1 which is pending consideration. He, accordingly, prays to dismiss the petition.

¶50

According to the complainant, petitioner had borrowed totally sum of Rs.82,00,000/- from her on various dates and aforesaid amount of Rs.82,00,000/- was transferred to the bank account of the petitioner from the joint bank account of

¶51

7 -

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:9355 CRL.RP No. 1417 of 2023

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

respondent and her husband. Bank account statement of the respondent with her husband from which the aforesaid amount of Rs.82,00,000/- was transferred to the bank account of the petitioner is produced and marked as Ex.P10 and from a perusal of the said document, it is found that on various dates totally sum of Rs.82,00,000/- was transferred to the bank account of the petitioner from the joint bank account of the respondent and her husband.

¶55

According to the complainant, towards repayment of the amount borrowed as found in Ex.P10, the cheques in question at Ex.P1, P3 and P5 were issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent totally for a sum of Rs.82,00,000/-. Signature of the petitioner found in the aforesaid three cheques are marked as Ex.P1(a), P3(a) and P5(a). Petitioner has not disputed his signature found in the aforesaid three cheques at Ex.P1, P3 and P5 nor has he disputed that the cheques in question were drawn on his bank account maintained in HDFC Bank, Sheshadripuram Branch, Bengaluru. The said cheques were dishonored by the drawee bank for the reason that funds were insufficient in the bank account of the petitioner.

¶56

8 -

¶57

NC: 2026:KHC:9355 CRL.RP No. 1417 of 2023

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

Therefore, a presumption arises against the petitioner as provided under Section 139 read with Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and unless the said presumption is rebutted by the petitioner by putting forward a probable defence, he is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶60

Petitioner has taken a specific defence before the Trial Court that the cheques in question were issued as a security to his transaction with the husband of the respondent and not towards repayment of the amount borrowed by him from the respondent. According to the petitioner, the amount which was received by him from the bank account of the respondent were all transferred to the bank account of the Company of which the husband of the respondent is the owner, with whom he had entered into an agreement for sale for purchase of an apartment.

¶61

Ex.D1 is the copy of the agreement for sale entered into by petitioner with M/s. Thakural Group of which Govinda Thakural is the proprietor and also with three others, who are said to be the owners of the property in which the apartment

¶62

9 -

¶63

NC: 2026:KHC:9355 CRL.RP No. 1417 of 2023

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

complex was supposed to be built by M/s. Thakural Group. It appears that Thakural Group had entered into a Joint Development Agreement with the owners of the property in which the apartment complex was supposed to be built and it is under these circumstances, agreement for sale at Ex.D1 was executed between the owners of the property, Thakural Group, who is the builder and between the petitioner, who intended to purchase an apartment in the apartment complex which the Thakural Group was supposed to build in the property belonging to the persons, who are party to agreement for sale at Ex.D1.

¶66

Ex.D2 is a tripartite agreement between Thakural Group, petitioner and LIC Housing Finance Ltd. which had sanctioned housing loan of Rs.1,90,00,000/- to the petitioner for purchase of the apartment to be built by M/s. Thakural Group. Ex.D3 is the loan sanction letter issued by LIC Housing Finance Ltd. and it appears that in terms of the tripartite agreement, the loan sanctioned by LIC Housing Finance Ltd. was directly released to the bank account of M/s. Thakural Group. Though the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioner would

¶67

10 -

¶68

NC: 2026:KHC:9355 CRL.RP No. 1417 of 2023

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

go to show that petitioner had entered into a sale agreement with the husband of the respondent for purchase of apartment and under the said sale agreement, he had paid substantial amount and even the housing loan which was sanctioned in his favour was released to the bank account of the builder, namely, Thakural Group, the said documents are not sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that the amount which was paid to the petitioner from the bank account of the respondent was repaid to her or he has discharged his liability towards the respondent. Undisputedly, respondent is not part of the group known as M/s. Thakural Group with whom the petitioner had entered into an agreement for sale vide Ex.D1. According to the petitioner, the cheques in question were issued to the husband of the complainant as security while executing the tripartite agreement at Ex.D2.

¶71

A reading of Ex.D2 would go to show that there is no mention of issuance of the cheques in question as a security under the said document. Even otherwise, as per the terms of Ex.D2, the loan amount sanctioned to the petitioner was required to be deposited to the bank account of the builder,

¶72

11 -

¶73

NC: 2026:KHC:9355 CRL.RP No. 1417 of 2023

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

namely, Thakural Group and therefore, there is no question of petitioner issuing any blank cheque as a security under the tripartite agreement at Ex.D2 to the husband of the complainant, who is the proprietor of the M/s. Thakural Group. It is under these circumstances, the Trial Court having placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rangappa vs. Mohan - (2010) 11 SCC 441 and also in the case of Bir Singh vs. Mukesh Kumar - (2019) 4 SCC 197, has held that the petitioner had failed to rebut the statutory presumption available against him as provided under Section 139 read with Section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act, and accordingly, has found him guilty for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, and has convicted him for same. The Appellate Court having reappreciated the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, has rightly confirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed against the petitioner. Even the order of sentence passed against the petitioner by the Courts below is

¶76

just and proportionate and does not call for any interference. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the revision

¶77