LEKHA Vs. MANICKAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is the battle lost for want of the horse shoe nail Does the innocuous defect made by the counsel while describing the name of the petitioner in the notice of demand result in the loss of this legal battle for him These are the questions that fall for consideration in this Revision Petition, directed against a concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

(2.) The cheque is for an amount of Rs. 2.25 lakhs. It bears the date 14.11.1996. The petitioner now faces a sentence of S.I for a period of three months. There is a further direction to pay an amount of Rs. 2.5 lakhs as compensation and in default to undergo S.I for a period of three months.

(3.) Signature in the cheque is admitted. Notice of demand, which was duly received and acknowledged, succeeded only in evoking Ext.P6 reply. No payment was made. The complainant in these circumstances came to court after observing the statutory time table scrupulously. He examined himself as PW1 and the manager of the drawee bank as PW2. Exts.Pl to P7 and Ext.Xl were marked by the complainant. The accused did not tender any oral evidence. Ext.Dl, an agreement was marked on the side of the accused when PW1 was in the witness stand.