P J NAGULAN Vs. S BALCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been preferred against the judgment in c. A. No. 55 of 2003 on the file of the Sessions judge, Uthagamandalam, which has arisen out of the judgment in C. C. No. 74 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial magistrate, Udagamandalam.

(2.) THE complainant/respondent herein has preferred a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr. P. C. , against the accused for an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, contending that to discharge a subsisting hand loan the accused had drawn a cheque for Rs. 85,000/-in the name of the complainant on 15. 9. 2002 and when the same was presented for realization on 28. 11. 2002 at Central Bank of India, Udagamandalam Branch, the same was returned with an endorsement "finds insufficient". Immediately the complainant had issued notice to the accused informing that the cheque drawn by him under Ex. P. 1 was dishonoured by the bank on presentation. In spite of the receipt of the notice under Ex. P. 4 the accused has not chosen to send any reply nor made any arrangement to repay the loan amount.

(3.) WHEN incriminating circumstances were put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr. P. C. , the accused would deny his complicity with the crime. But he has examined himself as D. W. 1 and exhibited Ex. D. 1 to ex. D. 3. After going through the evidence both oral and documentary, the learned trail Judge has come to the conclusion that the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt against the accused and accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to undergo RI for one year and also directed him to pay a compensation of Rs. 85,000/- to the complainant. Aggrieved by the findings of the learned trial Judge, the accused preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Nilgiris at Uthagamandalam, in C. A. No. 55 of 2003, who after giving due deliberations to the submissions made by counsel on both sides and after going through the evidence on records, modified the sentence alone to that of two months RI instead of one year RI and confirmed the fine imposed by the trial Court, which necessitated the accused to prefer this revision before this Court.