D KARTHIKEYAN Vs. M SELVARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused in C.C. No. 693/2006 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Poonamallee, a case instituted on a private complaint for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which ended in conviction resulting in the imposition of a sentence of six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and a simple imprisonment for two months in case of default in payment of fine, which also came to be confirmed by the appellate court, namely the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. 2), Poonamallee in C.A. No. 46/2008, has come forward with the present Criminal Revision Case questioning the correctness and legality of the said judgment of the appellate court confirming the conviction recorded and sentence awarded by the trial court.

(2.) The Respondent herein preferred a complaint on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Poonamallee, making the following allegations:

(3.) The said private complaint was taken on file as C.C. No. 693 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Poonamallee, after following the procedure for taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and process came to be issued to the Petitioner herein/accused. On appearance, the Petitioner herein/accused denied having committed any such offence as alleged in the complaint and hence a trial was conducted, in which the Respondent herein/complainant figured as the sole witness (P.W.1) and produced eight documents as Exs.P1 to P8 on his side. After the completion of recording of the evidence on the side of the Respondent herein/complainant, the attention of the Petitioner herein/accused was drawn to the in criminating materials found in the evidence adduced on the side of the complainant and he was examined under Section 313(1)(b) of Code of Criminal Procedure The Petitioner herein/accused denied the evidence to be false and once again reiterated his stand that he was not guilty of the offence alleged. The Petitioner herein/accused figured as the sole witness (D.W.1) and two documents were marked as Exs.D1 and D2 on his side.