C. BALASUBRAMANIYAN Vs. DASS ALIAS YESUDASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole accused, who was prosecuted before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Tiruchirappalli by the respondent herein in C.C.No.26 of 2006, a case instituted on private complaint for an alleged offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, has come forward with the criminal revision case, after suffering a conviction for the said offence in the trial court, namely the court of Judicial Magistrate No.2, Tiruchirappalli and confirmation of the same by the appellate court, namely the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.I), Tiruchirappalli in C.A.No.68 of 2010. Both the courts below have rendered a concurrent finding that the offence alleged by the respondent herein/complainant stood proved and that the petitioner herein/accused was guilty of the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

(2.) QUESTIONING the correctness and legality of the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.I) Tirchirappalli pronounced in C.A.No.68 of 2010 on 24.08.2011, confirming the judgment of the trial court, both in respect of conviction and also in respect of sentence, the present criminal revision case has been filed.

(3.) THE case of the respondent, who prosecuted the revision petitioner for the alleged offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is as follows:- On 01.12.2004 the revision petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.1,25,000.00 from the respondent/complainant and executed a promissory note marked as Ex.P1 promising to repay the said amount within six months with an interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Since the amount was not paid as promised, the revision petitioner was questioned by the respondent/complainant and pressurized for making repayment of the amount lent to him. Pursuant to the same, the revision petitioner gave a cheque dated 30.08.2005 drawn on his banker, namely 'Indian Bank, Cantonment Branch, Tirchirappalli, which has been marked as Ex.P2. When the said cheque was presented for collection, the same was returned with the dishonour slip (memo) marked as Ex.P3, citing the closure of account as the reason for dishonour. Thereafter the respondent issued a statutory notice under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 to the revision petitioner on 09.09.2005, a copy of which has been marked as Ex.P4 informing the revision petitioner of the fact that his cheque had been dishonoured and calling upon him to make payment of the cheque amount. The said notice was received by the revision petitioner on 10.09.2005 and the receipt of the same was acknowledged by the Postal Acknowledgment Card marked as Ex.P5. Though the revision petitioner was served with such a statutory notice, he did not issue any reply either admitting or disputing the contents found in the notice. Nor did he choose to comply with the demand made in the notice within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. Consequently, the respondent/complainant was constrained to approach the trial court with the complaint for the prosecution of the revision petitioner and for punishing him for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.