A KRISHNAN Vs. S MARIMUTHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision arises against two concurrent judgments of the courts below, wherein the petitioner stands convicted for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.

(2.) THE petitioner faced prosecution in C.C.No.254 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.III, Salem. THE prosecution case was that the petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from the respondent for his family expenses as well as for business purpose on 23.02.2005 and issued a cheque dated 23.03.2005 in such sum in favour of the respondent. Upon presentation of the cheque, it was returned on the ground of insufficient funds and therefore, the respondent followed the procedure under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and preferred a complaint.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had no dealings with the respondent and that the petitioner had dealt with one Singaram and in the course of chit transactions, he issued two signed blank cheques in favour of Singaram. The said Singaram has set up this respondent and preferred a false complaint. In support of such contention, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that during cross examination of the respondent, it had been elicited that he was a labourer in a Banian Company and that the petitioner is a person running two cycle stands and a wine shop and financially was sound and that the petitioner had no occasion for taking a loan from him. Further, he knew the said Singaram, which person was engaged in money lending at exorbitant rates. The respondent had deposed that the loan was handed over by him to the petitioner at the petitioner's cycle stand when no witness was there. According to the respondent, the cheque had been duly filled up and handed over to him. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner would submit that on bare perusal of the cheque/Ex.P1 in question, it would be apparent that the writings and the signature thereupon were different.