SHIVA MURTHY Vs. AMRUTHRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition is filed under section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr. P. C. , questioning the legality and correctness of the judgment dated 19. 8. 2005 passed by the Presiding officer, Fast Track Court-II, Mandya, in Crl. A. No. 86/2004 dismissing the said appeal filed by the petitioner herein and affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Civil Judge, (Junior division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Srirangapatna in CC No. 457/2003, convicting the petitioner herein for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short the N. I. Act') and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and also directing the petitioner to pay compensation of Rs. 75,000/-to the complainant being the value of the cheque.

(2.) THE respondent herein is the complainant before the learned magistrate. I shall refer to the parties herein with reference to their ranking in the Court below.

(3.) THE complainant filed a complaint against the accused under Section 138 of the N. I. act, inter alia contending that the accused for the purpose of improving his business and for repayment of his loan, borrowed a sum of Rs. 75,000/- from the complainant on 20. 5. 2002 and for discharging the said liability, the accused issued post dated cheque bearing No. 480735 dated 10. 3. 2003 for Rs. 75,000/- drawn on Alahabad Bank, Mysore Branch and requested the complainant to present the said cheque for encashment on 10. 3. 2003. When the complainant presented the said cheque on 10. 3. 2003 for encashment through his Banker, the said cheque came to be returned with an endorsement 'payment stopped by the drawer' and for 'insufficient funds' on 28. 3. 2003. Thereafter, the complainant issued a legal notice to the accused on 2. 5. 2003 informing the accused about the dishonour of the cheque and demanding payment of the amount covered under the cheque. Though the accused received the said notice on 9. 5. 2003, he has neither replied the notice nor has complied with the demand made therein. With these contents the complaint was filed on 13. 7. 2003.