V.S.GUNASEELAN Vs. ARUCHAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioners / appellants / accused have preferred the present revision in Crl.R.C.No.529 of 2007 against the judgment made in C.A.No.165 of 2006, on the file of Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Track Court-III, Coimbatore, confirming the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.186 of 2001, on the file of Judicial Magistrate-II, Pollachi.

(2.) THE respondent / complainant's case is as follows:- The accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.6,00,000.00 from the complainant on 30.03.2001. On demand made by the complainant, the accused had issued a cheque dated 28.05.2001 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000.00 drawn on Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank, Pollachi Branch to and in favour of complainant. When the complainant presented the said cheque for encashment with his bankers, viz., Corporation Bank, Pollachi Branch, it was returned unpaid with an endorsement of insufficient funds. The complainant sent a legal notice to the accused on 16.06.2001 through R.P.A.D. and certificate of posting. The accused did not receive the notice sent through R.P.A.D. but had received the notice sent through certificate of posting. The accused sent a reply notice but failed to effect payment. Hence, the complainant had preferred a complaint against the accused for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

(3.) P .W.1., Jayaprakash, the Manager of Tamil Nadu Mercantile Branch had adduced evidence that the accused had a current account in their bank and that the said cheque leaf Ex.P1 had been issued by their bank to the accused. P.W.1 deposed that when the said cheque was presented for collection in their bank on 13.06.2001, it was returned unpaid due to "insufficient funds" in the account of accused and that the balance in the account of accused was Rs.1.00 only at the time of presentation of cheque. In support of his evidence, he had marked Ex.P2, the return memo and Ex.P3-the bank account statement of accused.