R.S.B. VENMANI Vs. S. BALASUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is the accused in STC No. 41 of 2011 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Srivilliputhur and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month with compensation of twice the amount of cheque amount of Rs.2,50,000/ -, with default sentence of three months simple imprisonment vide judgment dated 22.08.2011. The accused aggrieved by the conviction and sentence recorded by the lower Court filed an appeal in CA No. 136 of 2011 on the file of the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur and the lower appellate Court, while confirming the conviction, has modified the sentence of compensation to that of cheque amount and maintain the default sentence vide impugned judgment dated 06.10.2012. The appellant/accused aggrieved by the confirmation of conviction and sentence passed by the lower appellate Court in the impugned judgment, has filed this revision.

(2.) THE respondent/private complainant has filed STC No. 41 of 2011 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Srivilliputhur alleging that the revision petitioner/accused has borrowed a sum of Rs.2,50,000/ - on 08.05.2009 on executing a demand promissory note and also agreed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum. When the respondent/private complainant made demand to settle the amount, she, as a proprietrix of M/s. Hrshini Jaanu Enterprises, has issued a cheque No. 102862 dated 22.04.2010 drawn on ICICI Bank, Rajapalayam Branch for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/ - (Ex.P2). The said cheque was presented for clearance to the Complainant bank, namely, State Bank of India, Srivilliputhur on 28.04.2010 and it was returned with an endorsement "not arranged for" vide return memo dated 03.05.2010(Ex.P4). Thereafter the complainant issued a statutory notice under Ex.P6 to the address of the revision petitioner/accused given in the pronote with a copy marked to the office address and the copy was served under Ex.P.7 acknowledgment. As the revision petitioner/accused has failed to make payment within 15 days from the date of receipt of statutory notice, the respondent/private complainant filed the above said complaint.

(3.) THE revision petitioner/accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances made out against her and the evidence rendered by the respondent/private complainant and she denied it as false.