V. ABUTHAHIR Vs. THIRUPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Case has been filed to set aside the judgment of the Appellate Court passed by the Additional District Judge No.VI, Madurai District, in C.A.No.17 of 2020, dtd. 29/10/2020, confirming the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track) No.II, Madurai District, in S.T.C. No. 447 of 2016, dtd. 9/12/2019.

(2.) The case against the revision petitioner is that on 1/6/2014, the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.10,00,000.00 to meet out his family expenses and for business needs and agreed to pay an interest at the rate of 1.5% and executed an undertaking agreement. But, he failed to repay the amount, even after demand from the revision respondent. When the complainant approached the revision petitioner to repay the amount, he issued a cheque, dtd. 15/5/2015 drawn in S.B.I., Tallakulam Branch. When the complainant presented the cheque, the cheque was dishonoured as "funds insufficient". Again, on 5/8/2015, the complainant presented the cheque for collection and the same was returned as " stop payment". The revision respondent filed a complaint, which was taken on file as S.T.C.No.447 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, (F.T.C., Magistrate Level), Madurai. The trial Court found the petitioner guilty under Sec. 138 of N.I.Act and sentenced him to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment and to pay a compensation of Rs.10,00,000.00 (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) to the complainant within a period of three months, in default, to undergo a further period of two months simple imprisonment. Against the conviction and sentence the petitioner filed an appeal in C.A.No.17 of 2020 on the file of the VI Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai. That appeal was dismissed by the first appellate Court. Against which, the petitioner has preferred this revision in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.7 of 2021.

(3.) On the side of the revision petitioner, it is stated that the revision petitioner did not borrow any amount from the respondent. He borrowed some amount from one Sivasubramanian and Seeman and not from the revision respondent. The revision respondent failed to prove that there was a legally enforceable debt.