T.K.P. SAMPATHKUMAR Vs. SULOCHANNA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C. No. 23 of 2000, on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam. The complainant has filed the said complaint against the revision petitioner herein seeking prosecution under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The Trial Court, after full-fledged trial, has convicted the revision petitioner/accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year, vide impugned judgment dated 25.07.2006. The accused, aggrieved by the conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court, preferred an appeal in C.A.No.30 of 2006, on the file of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. IV), Periyakulam, and the lower Appellate Court, vide impugned judgment dated 06.03.2008, has confirmed the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal and aggrieved by the same, the accused has filed this revision.

(2.) A perusal of the judgments passed by the Courts below would disclose the following facts:

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below and would submit that one Venkatesan is the son-in-law of the revision petitioner and he had acquainted with one Sachithanantham and from Sachithanantham, the revision petitioner/accused has also obtained loan and as a security, he had handed over the said cheque and there is already acquaintance between the son-in-law of the complainant and Sachithanantham and the cheque given to Sachithanantham, by way of security, has been misused by the complainant and the false complaint came to be lodged and the said vital aspect has been completely overlooked by the Courts below.