CRL.RP/774/2024 of SRI SULTAN SALAHUDDIN Vs MR P GOUTHAM on 23 July 2026

ORAL ORDER

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that, the complainant was the absolute owner of site No.21/3 (Old No.55/2A and 21) situated at 1st Cross, Gurappanapalya, Bengaluru, measuring 2,000 square feet. The complainant offered to sell the said site and the accused came forward to purchase the same. On negotiation, the accused agreed to purchase the property for total sale consideration of Rs.1,04,10,000/-. The complainant sold the said property to the accused through registered sale deed dated 11.06.2019. Before and at the time of entering into the sale deed, the accused had paid a sum of Rs.76,10,000/- to the

HC-KAR

complainant by transferring the amount through bank and by way of cash. For the payment of balance sale consideration of Rs.28,00,000/-, the accused had issued three post dated cheques totaling to an amount of Rs.28,00,000/-. These payments are clearly mentioned in the sale deed. While issuing the cheques, the accused has promised that on presentation, the cheques would be honoured. After execution of the sale deed, the accused requested the complainant not to present the cheques for sometime and that he will arrange to pay the amount provided under the cheques or he will instruct the complainant to present the cheques. Believing the said words of the accused, the complainant waited for sometime, but there was no response from the accused. Hence, on 16.09.2019, the complainant presented those cheques and the same were dishonoured with an endorsement “want of sufficient funds”. Hence, memo was issued to that effect on 17.09.2019. Thereafter, the accused had transferred an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- to the complainant covered under cheque bearing No.016882 dated 27.06.2019. The amount involved in other two cheques were not paid. Hence, he got issued the

HC-KAR

legal notice to the accused on 15.10.2018 demanding the payment covered under two cheques to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/-. The said notice was issued through RPAD. However, the accused did not personally receive the same and the intimation after RPAD was delivered to the accused on 22.10.2019. Even thereafter, the accused neither paid the amount covered by under the cheques nor issued any reply to the legal notice issued by the complainant. Therefore, complainant has filed the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. The Trial Court having taken note of the contents of the complaint, took the cognizance and secured the accused before the Trial Court and the accused did not plead guilty and claimed the trial. Hence, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 8 and also examined a witness as P.W.2 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.9 to P11 through him. The 313 statement of the accused was recorded on 21.12.2021 and 17.09.2022 by explaining the incriminating circumstances and got marked the documents at Exs.D.1 and 2 and examined himself as D.W.1.

HC-KAR

4. The Trial Court having taken note of the answers elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and also the evidence of D.W.1 and the documents relied upon and having taken note of payment of Rs.14,00,000/- made to the father of the complainant, comes to the conclusion that the same is in respect of the agreement between the father of the complainant and the accused to sign the document as consenting witness and the same was not taken to the adjustment. However, having taken note of the payment of Rs.8,00,000/- made earlier in respect of one cheque and also payment of Rs.5,00,000/- made on 19.09.2019, deducted the same out of the cheque amount of Rs.20,00,000/- and considered Rs.15,00,000/- and so also ordered to pay the amount of Rs.18,05,000/-. In paragraph No.36 taken note of the sale deed wherein there was a clause to pay the interest and hence, the other payment made on 11.05.2020 was adjusted towards the interest for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the delay in making the payment.

5. The said judgment of conviction and sentence is questioned before the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court

HC-KAR

also having re-assessed both oral and documentary evidence, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. The Appellate Court also taken note of with regard to the adjustment of Rs.1,00,000/- towards interest in paragraph No.22 and taken note of the contents of Ex.P.8 sale deed at page No.5. At clause (f) and (h), the reference of the cheques in question is made. On plain reading of recitals of the sale deed, it is evident that the cheques in question are issued towards sale consideration. According to the accused, the entire sale consideration is paid, but to substantiate the same, no iota of evidence is produced. The amount transferred to the account of P.W.2, father of the complainant is in respect of payment made by the accused towards the Ex.P.9 transaction and not towards the sale consideration. The Appellate Court taking note of the same affirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.

6. The arguments of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner before this Court is of two fold; that the amount paid to the father of the complainant to the tune of Rs.14,00,000/- was not adjusted by the Trial Court towards the subject matter of cheque in issue. The learned counsel would

HC-KAR

contend that the payment made to the complainant to the tune of Rs.14,00,000/- i.e., Rs.8,00,000/- on 30.09.2019, Rs.5,00,000/- on 19.09.2019 and Rs.1,00,000/- on 11.05.2020 if it is taken, Rs.28,00,000/- amount of sale consideration was paid in entirety and hence, both the Courts have committed an error.

7. The second fold of argument of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that while issuing the notice, the complainant did not mention for having made the payment of Rs.5,00,000/- on 19.09.2019 and hence, the very issuance of legal notice is defective and initiation of the cheque bounce case against the petitioner is also defective. The Trial Court ought not to have considered the provisions of Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that there is no dispute that the accused had issued three cheques and all the three cheques were dishonored. Subsequent to the dishonour of one cheque is concerned to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/-, the accused made the payment and the same is also stated in the notice itself. The

HC-KAR

learned counsel would submit that Rs.1,00,000/-, which was paid was adjusted by the Trial Court and Appellate Court with regard to the interest is concerned in view of clause (f) and (h) of the sale deed, which is marked as Ex.P.8 and there is a clear clause with regard to the non-payment of amount. The learned counsel would submit that the other payment of Rs.5,00,000/- though it is not stated in the notice, but when there is a clear clause in the sale agreement, the same was also adjusted. But the Trial Court has not taken note of the same and only adjusted the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the interest and the same is also considered by the Appellate Court and hence, the very contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner cannot be accepted.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent, the first fold of argument of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that amount paid in favour of the father of the complainant ought to have been adjusted and the same was not accepted by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court in coming to the conclusion that in document Ex.P.9 there was an

HC-KAR

agreement between the father of the complainant and the revision petitioner to make the payment of Rs.20,00,000/-. There was a recital in the document and that document was not denied by the revision petitioner and payment made to the father is also in respect of document of Ex.P.9 and the same was taken note of by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. Hence, the very contention that both the Courts have committed an error cannot be accepted that the said payment of Rs.14,00,000/- made to the father of the complainant is also towards the dishonour of two cheques.

10. The other contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the notice is defective and the initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner is also defective in respect of payment made to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/-. As against the said argument, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the payment of Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- is adjusted towards the interest in view of the clause in the sale deed. There is no dispute that there is a clause in the sale deed that in case of default, interest has to be paid as agreed and the said

HC-KAR

contention was not accepted by the Trial Court, but only adjusted an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the interest and even for having made the payment of Rs.5,00,000/- also given deduction while considering the subject matter of two cheques and only considered Rs.15,00,000/- as balance to be paid by the accused as against the claim of Rs.20,00,000/-. When such material is available before the Court, I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that both the Courts have committed an error in appreciating the evidence available on record. A clear finding is given by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court with regard to the liability is concerned and legal liability is also under the document of Ex.P.8 sale deed for which post dated cheques were given and both are dishonored and to that effect the case is filed. The very contention that legal notice and initiation of criminal proceedings is defective cannot be accepted and the reasoning given by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court not suffers from its legality and correctness. This Court can exercise the reversionary powers, if any, miscarriage in appreciating both oral and documentary evidence available on

HC-KAR

record. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit the revision petition.

11. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is dismissed.

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24