R THANGAVEL Vs. P MANOHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision arises out of the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Erode, in C.A.No.346 of 2006, dated 18.10.2007, confirming the conviction and sentence of simple imprisonment for two years and set aside the compensation award passed in C.C.No.293 of 2003, dated 27.11.2006, by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Erode, for the offences under Sections 138 read with 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

(2.) THE skeleton of the complaint is as follows: (i)THE revision petitioner/accused borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- each on 08.10.2002 and 10.10.2002, totaling Rs.1,00,000/- from the respondent/complainant. He issued two cheques bearing Nos.328639 and 328640 dated 14.12.2002 in respect of the said amounts and the same were presented in the Bank on 15.03.2003, but it was returned as 'insufficient funds'. Immediately, the respondent/complainant issued a statutory notice on 03.04.2003 and the revision petitioner/accused received the same on 04.04.2003 and he gave a reply with false allegations. Since he has not repaid the cheque amounts, the respondent/complainant has come forward with the complaint under Sections 138 read with 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. (ii) THE trial Court, after following the procedure, since the revision petitioner/accused has pleaded not guilty, he examined the witnesses P.W.1, P.W.2, D.W.1 and D.W.2 and perused the documentary evidence Exs.P1 to P11 and Exs.D1 to D9, convicted the revision petitioner/accused for the offences under Sections 138 read with 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him for two years simple imprisonment and also directed him to pay the cheque amount as a compensation, against which, the revision petitioner/accused preferred an appeal in C.A.No.346 of 2006 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No.1, Erode. THE learned Additional District Judge, after hearing the arguments, set aside the compensation, but confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, against which, the present revision has been preferred by the revision petitioner/accused.

(3.) CONSIDERED the rival submissions made on both sides.