P GNANAMBIGAI Vs. S KRISHNASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused is the petitioner herein. THE revision is filed against the judgment of conviction made in C.A. No. 176 of 2003 on the file of Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court, Erode confirming the judgment made in C.C. No. 541 of 2002 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. I, Erode.

(2.) THE case of the first respondent against the petitioner in his private complaint is that the petitioner on 14.7.2002 borrowed a sum of RS 2,50,000/- as loan and paid interest of RS 5,000/- and for the due repayment of the principle amount issued Exhibit P-l cheque dated 12.8.2002, and when the same was presented for encashment on 13.8.2002, the same is returned for want of sufficient funds and the same was intimated to the petitioner by notice dated 23.8.2002 and the petitioner did neither respond to the notice nor pay the amount. THE first respondent/complainant has in order to prove his case before the trial Court examined himself as P.W..1 and has also produced Exhibit P-l to Exhibit P-6 documents. THE trial Court has on the basis of the available records accepted the case of the complainant that Exhibit A-1 cheque is issued for the due repayment of loan amount of RS 2,50,000/- and found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (herein after referred to as "N.I. Act") and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment and to pay fine. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner preferred C.A. 176 of 2003 and the lower appellate Court has also confirmed the findings and the judgment of conviction based on such finding passed by the trial Court. Hence, this criminal revision by the accused before this Court.

(3.) PER contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant would strenuously contend that though the presumption raised under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is rebuttable the burden is upon the accused/petitioner to adduce sufficient material to rebut the same and mere raising some vague and bald defence in the course of trial is not sufficient enough to discharge the burden and the failure of the petitioner to issue reply notice and to enter into the witness box are the factors to be viewed against the petitioner and the minor discrepancies in the testimony of P.W. 1 cannot be highlighted to reject the case of the complainant in toto.