KANNAN Vs. ANDHRA CEMENTS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Criminal Revision has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 29.09.2005, in C.A. No. 132/2005, on the file of the VI Additional Sessions Court, Chennai, whereby the revision Petitioner/accused is guilty for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo two years' simple imprisonment and to pay the cheque amount of Rs. 14,74,805/- as compensation, in default in payment, to undergo six months' simple imprisonment, confirming the order passed by the learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, in C.C. No. 240/1998 on 07.04.2005.

(2.) The Respondent/complainant preferred a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, stating that the revision Petitioner is a dealer of cements and in the course of their business, he issued a cheque bearing No. 311687 dated 30.06.1997 for Rs. 14,74,805/-, which was marked as Ex. P2. When the cheque under Ex. P2 was presented for encashment and the same was returned as "Funds Insufficient", which was marked as Ex. P3. A statutory notice was issued by the Respondent/complainant on 10.07.1997 under Ex. P4 and an acknowledgement card received by the accused was marked as Ex. P5. Andhra Cements' Director's Board has passed a resolution for filing the case and the same was marked as Ex. P1. After receipt of the statutory notice issued by the Respondent/complainant, neither he replied nor he repaid the payment. Hence, the Respondent/complainant was constrained to file a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

(3.) The trial Court, after following the procedure, since the accused pleaded not guilty, examined the witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.3 and perused the documentary evidence under Exs. P1 to P6, convicted the accused for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him as indicated above, against which, the accused preferred an appeal in C.A. No. 132/2005 on the file of VI Additional Sessions Court, Chennai and the same was dismissed, against which, the present revision has been preferred by the revision Petitioner/accused.