GOWTHAMCHAND Vs. INDHRANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent/accused was convicted by the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai -600 008, in C.C. Nos. 1833 of 2003 and 1832 of 2003, dated 13.12.2006, for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months in each case and to pay a sum of Rs. 73,575/ - and Rs. 18,250/ - respectively as compensation within six months, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Challenging the same, the respondent/accused has preferred Criminal Appeal Nos. 9 and 8 of 2007 before the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, which were allowed on 07.12.2007, thereby, reversing the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court. As against the same, the complainant's son has filed the present Criminal Revision Cases.

(2.) THE complainant is one S.R. Jain, subsequently, he died and thereafter, in his place, his son Gowtham Chand was substituted. The case of the complainant is that the respondent/accused has borrowed a sum of Rs. 26,425/ -, Rs. 47,150/ - and Rs. 18,250/ - and to repay the same, the accused issued four cheques. When the complainant presented the cheques for collection, the same returned with an endorsement "Insufficient Funds". The complainant issued a lawyer's notice. After receiving the notice, the accused neither sent a reply nor came forward to settle the amount, hence, the complaint was given by the complainant. The complaint was taken on the file of the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, and it was assigned C.C. Nos. 1833 and 1832 of 2003. The Trial Court has found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months in each case and to pay a sum of Rs. 73,575/ - and Rs. 18,250/ - respectively as compensation within six months, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Challenging the same, the respondent/accused has preferred Criminal Appeal Nos. 9 and 8 of 2007 before the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, which were allowed on 07.12.2007, thereby, reversing the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court. Hence, the Criminal Revision Cases are filed by the complainant.

(3.) THOUGH , notice has been ordered in 2008, till date, no steps were taken to serve notice on the respondent and therefore, none appeared for the respondent. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/complainant in full in both cases.