P MANIKASUNDARAM Vs. SIVASAMBU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision has been preferred against the judgment in C. A. No. 54 of 1998 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Erode. The complainant has preferred private complaint under Section 200 of Cr. P. C. , for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, against the accused before the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Erode, who after recording the sworn statement of the complainant had taken the complaint on file and issued summons to the accused for appearance. On appearance of the accused, copies under Section207 of Cr. P. C. , were furnished to the accused and when the charges levelled against the accused is explained to him, he pleaded not guilty. On the side of the complainant P. W. 1 to P. W. 3 were examined and Ex. P. 1 to P. 10 were marked.

(2.) P. W. 1 is the complainant, who would depose that on 01. 06. 1997 the accused had drawn Ex. P. 1-cheque for the said amount as a security for the debt borrowed by him. On 1. 8. 1998 the accused had paid Rs. 2,600/- towards interest. When the cheque was presented for collection in Indian Bank, Perunthurai Branch, the same was returned with an endorsement 'payment stopped by the creditor'. This fact was spoken to by P. W. 2 an employee of Indian Bank, Perunthurai Branch. Ex. P. 2 is the Bank memo sent along with EX. P. 1-cheque. P. W. 3 is an employee of the Bank of Baroda, wherein the accused is having his account. As contemplated under section 138 (b) of the Negotiable Instrument Act, the complainant had issued notice to the accused informing about the return of the cheque. Ex. P. 3 is the copy of the notice. Ex. P. 6 is the acknowledgment. Ex. P. 7 is the reply notice dated 11. 8. 1997. Ex. P. 8 and P. 9 are the current account slip of the complainant. Ex. P. 10 is the statement of account relating to the accused's account in P. W. 3's bank.

(3.) WHEN incriminating circumstances were put to the accused, he denied his complicity with the crime. After going through the available evidence both oral and documentary, the learned trial judge has held that an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act has been made out against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- with default sentence and has further awarded Rs. 18,000/- as compensation from out of the fine amount under Section 357 (1) of Cr. P. C. Aggrieved by the findings of the learned trial judge, the accused has preferred an appeal before the II Additional Sessions Judge, Erode, in C. A. No. 54 of 1998. After giving due deliberation to the submissions made by both sides counsel and after scrutinizing the evidence both oral and documentary, the learned first appellate judge has confirmed the judgment of the trial Court on the ground that there is no reason to interfere with the findings of the learned trial judge. Hence, this revision before this court by the accused.