K.S. BHASKAR Vs. B.A. CHANDRASHEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the concurrent findings of his conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short].

(2.) THE facts relevant for the purpose of this revision are as under: The petitioner is the accused, whereas the respondent is the complainant before the trial Court. The accused took an amount of Rs. 2,60,000 -00 on 30.10.2005 from the complainant and towards repayment of the said amount, issued a cheque dated 02.12.2005 and when it was presented for encashment, it returned with an endorsement of insufficient funds. The complainant issued a notice and also served notice by hand, but There was no compliance of the demand made. In these circumstances, a complaint came to be lodged by the complainant before the trial Court to initiate action against, the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. During the trial, the complainant was examined as P.W.1 and in his evidence, documents Exs.P1 to 8 were marked. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused examined himself as D.W.1 and no documents were produced. The trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and or: appreciation of the material on record, awarded a fine of Rs. 3, 60,000 -00, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. An amount of Rs. 3,40,000 -00 was ordered to be paid as a compensation to the complainant and the remaining amount was ordered to be credited to the State. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused approached the first appellate Court in Cri.A. No. 837/2008, which also came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the concurrent finding of the Courts below, the present revision petition has been filed.

(3.) IT is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not availed the loan facility from the respondent and that the respondent had received the blank cheque as a security, and no demand notice was served upon him. He has also disputed the signature on the notice -Ex.P7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has supported the Judgment and Orders of the Courts below.