MADHA TRANSPORT Vs. BHOOPALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision arises against the judgment of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpet passed in Crl.A.No.34 of 2006 on 09.01.2007. The 1st petitioner is proprietor concern of the 2nd petitioner. The respondent preferred a complaint in C.C.No.1008/2004 informing that the 2nd petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for his business purpose and towards repayment there of issued a cheque for such sum. The borrowal of Rs.2,00,000/- was made on 03.05.2004 and the cheque was dated 03.05.2004. The respondent presented for payment on 04.06.2004, and the same was returned for the reason "insufficient funds". Following the procedure under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act the respondent preferred the complaint.

(2.) BEFORE the trial court, the respondent examined two witnesses and marked eight exhibits. None were examined on behalf of the petitioner/ accused nor any exhibits were marked.

(3.) GIVEN the facts of the case, we find no reason to interfere with the findings of conviction arrived at by the courts below. However, in the interest of justice, we find it appropriate and accordingly direct that the sentence in the case shall be as follows: