V DEIVANAYAGAM Vs. K SARAVANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the judgment, dated 31.03.2006 made in C.A. No. 64 of 2005, on the file of I Assistant Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, confirming the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi in C.C. No. 542 of 2003 dated 17.02.2005, the criminal revision has been preferred by the accused therein.

(2.) On the complaint given by the Respondent herein under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the case was taken on file by the trial Court on the ground that the revision Petitioner/accused had issued a cheque, dated 15.06.2003 for a sum of Rs. 1 lakh for the consideration received, however, the cheque was dishonored by the bank, while the same was presented for payment. The cheque dated 15.06.2003 dishonored by the bank was marked as Ex.A.1 before the trial Court. The endorsement dated 26.07.2003 made by the Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Kutralam was marked as Ex.A.2. Debit Invoice, dated 31.07.2003 made by the Bank of India in the account of the Respondent / complainant is marked as Ex.P.3. Subsequently, the Respondent / complainant issued a legal notice, dated 06.08.2003, the copy of the same has been marked as Ex.P.4. The revision Petitioner/ accused received the notice, for which, the postal acknowledgment was marked as Ex.P.5.

(3.) According to the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent, in spite of service of notice, the Respondent has neither settled the dues, nor sent any reply. Hence, the complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was filed by the Respondent / complainant before the court below. The trial Court has found that the cheque was dishonored due to insufficient funds and held based on the evidence that the alleged guilt against the revision Petitioner / accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court, while convicting the revision Petitioner / accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act has imposed a sentence of 1 year S.I. and pay a fine of Rs. 400/-, in default, to undergo 3 months S.I. and the appellate Court confirmed the same. Aggrieved by which, the revision has been preferred by the revision Petitioner herein. The learned I Assistant Session Judge, confirming the conviction and sentence, dismissed the appeal. The revision Petitioner has not raised any legal issues in the revision on the issuance of cheque and passing of consideration. I am of the view that the concurrent findings of the Court below is based on the evidence which would warrant no interference by this Court. The Respondent has not raised any legal points to reverse the concurrent findings of the Court below, to hold the same as perverse or unsustainable in law.