P. PONNAMBALAM Vs. R. RAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent is the complainant. The petitioner is the accused before Metropolitan Magistrate, FTC IV, George Town, Chennai-1 in C.C.No.1599 of 2014.

(2.) The respondent filed the complaint against the petitioner herein under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act before the Metropolitan Magistrate, FTC, Chennai. The Magistrate taken cognizance of the complaint in C.C.No.1599 of 2014. During the enquiry, the respondent/complainant was examined as witness as P.W.1 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11. After completing the evidence of the complainant side, on the side of the accused, two witnesses were examined and 29 documents were marked. After completing enquiry, the Magistrate found that the accused is guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo 10 months simple imprisonment and to pay compensation of Rs.18,00,000/-. Challenging the said judgment of conviction and sentence, accused filed an appeal before the City Civil Court, Chennai, and the same was taken on file in Crl.A.No.615 of 2018 and made over to the XVI Additional District and Sessions Court, Chennai. The learned XVI Additional District and Sessions Court, after hearing arguments on either side, passed the judgment confirming the conviction and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revision Petitioner/accused. Challenging the said judgment of dismissal of the appeal in Crl.A.No.615 of 2018, on the file of the XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chennai, the accused has filed the present Revision before this Court.

(3.) The case of the respondent/complainant is that the petitioner and the respondent are very close family friends for the past 30 years. The petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.14 lakhs from the respondent on various dates from 2009 onwards for the business and family commitments as hand loan. The petitioner used to give an undertaking through a letter pad by acknowledging the debt i.e., a letter showing the dates as and when he borrowed money from the respondent. On account of the close friendship, he used to accept without any documents. Since the petitioner acknowledged the entire money borrowed from the respondent and he did not repay it, the respondent issued a notice on 17.01.2014 to the petitioner to settle the said amount. For which, the petitioner sent evasive reply dated 24.01.2014 and subsequently, the petitioner approached the respondent by saying that on ill advice from some persons, he sent evasive reply. He promised to repay money and he issued a cheque No.000040 dated 11.02.2014 drawn on City Union Bank, Maraimalai Nagar Branch, for a sum of Rs.14,00,000/- in favour of the respondent along with covering letter dated 13.02.2014. The said cheque was presented for collection through his banker Indian Bank, High Court Branch, Madras, Chennai on 11.02.2014. The said cheque was returned with an endorsement "exceeds arrangement" by return memo dated 13.02.2014. The same was informed to the petitioner by way of statutory notice dated 21.02.2014 to the petitioner calling upon him to repay the cheque amount within the statutory period. Despite the said notice, the revision petitioner did not repay the money. Neither he repaid the cheque amount, nor sent any reply. Therefore, the respondent filed private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. After the enquiry, the Magistrate allowed the complaint filed by the respondent and convicted the petitioner. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed appeal before the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, and the same was dismissed of by XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, by confirming the judgment of the Magistrate.