L. RAMAKRISHNAPPA Vs. B. RAJASHEKARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 18/8/2014 in C.C.No.7477/2012 on the file of the Court of the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore and its confirmation judgment and order dtd. 24/6/2015 in Crl.A.No.992/2014 on the file of the Court of LXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City (CCH.No.66), seeking to set aside the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, wherein the petitioner / accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short " N.I Act "). Brief facts of the case are as under:

(2.) It is the case of the complainant that, the petitioner / accused is stated to be his friend and both were working in the Education Department. Due to the said acquaintance, it is stated that the petitioner approached the respondent / complainant for financial assistance and for domestic necessities and stated to have borrowed a sum of Rs.1,70,000.00. It is stated that, the respondent paid the said amount by way of cash. It was assured that the amount would be repaid to the respondent within a period of two to three months. It is further stated that, after the lapse of three months, when the respondent demanded the petitioner to repay the amount, he had issued two post-dated cheques bearing No.069997 dtd. 25/8/2011 and No.069998 dtd. 25/9/2011 for Rs.85,000.00 each, drawn on Canara Bank, Malleshwaram Branch, Bangalore, in favour of the complainant. When those cheques were presented for encashment, the respondent received a shara as "account dormant" and it was intimated to the petitioner. On following the procedure, a complaint was filed before the Magistrate having jurisdiction. The Magistrate took cognizance of the said offence and proceeded further in the case.

(3.) To prove the case, the complainant examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P16. On the other hand, the petitioner herein examined himself as DW.1. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the petitioner for the offence stated supra and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.2,20,000.00. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of conviction rendered by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition seeking to set aside the concurrent findings.