K CHINNASAMY Vs. C DURAISAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the judgment, rendered in C. A. No. 86 of 2001 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Erode, confirming the conviction and sentence, imposed in C. C. No. 254 of 1998 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. III, Erode.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows : the case in C. C. No. 254 of 1998 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. III, Erode was taken on file on the complaint given by the respondent/complainant, under Section 138 r/w 142 of negotiable Instruments Act. As per the complaint, the revision petitioner/accused, had received a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the respondent/ complaint on 2-1-1998 and issued a post dated cheque, dated 2-4-1998 of Karur vysya Bank, Erode Branch, the same was sent by the respondent/complainant, for collection through Indian Overseas Bank. Erode Branch, but was dishonoured and returned with the note "insufficient funds". In support of his contention, the respondent/complainant examined himself as p. W. 1, apart from examining the officer of the Karur Vysya Bank, Erode Branch as p. W. 2 and marking documents Ex. Pl to P. 8. No witness was examined and no documents were marked on the side of the revision petitioner/accused. The dishonoured cheque issued by the respondent/complainant was marked as Ex. P1, along with the written memo sent by the Karur Vysya Bank, whereby it was intimated that no sufficient funds available in the account. Subsequent to the dishonour, the respondent/complainant issued legal notice, Ex. P4 and the postal receipt has been marked as Ex. P5. Then, the respondent/complainant filed the complaint under section 138 r/w 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

(3.) CONSIDERING the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court has held that the charges levelled against the revision petitioner/accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, convicted him under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and imposed six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default sentence. Against which appeal was preferred in C. A. No. 86 of 2001 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Erode, the appellate Court, considering the evidence available on records and the arguments advanced by both sides, has confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by which, this criminal Revision has been preferred by the revision petitioner/accused.