B SURYAKANTHAM Vs. A KOTHANDARAMIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision has been preferred against the judgment in C. A. No. 125 of 2002 on the file of the VI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai.

(2.) THE complainant has preferred a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr. P. C. , against the accused for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, before the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. After recording the sworn statement of the complainant and after getting satisfied in respect of a prima facia case has been made out against the accused, the learned Judicial Magistrate has taken the private complaint on file as C. C. No. 2035/2000 and on appearance of the accused copies under Section 207 of Cr. P. C. , were furnished to the accused and when the offence was explained to the accused, 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.

(3.) P. W. 1 in his evidence would depose that he is the power agent of the complainant and Ex. P. 1 is the deed of power. The accused had borrowed from the complainant a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as loan and to discharge the said loan the accused had drawn a cheque for Rs. 50,000/- on 30. 3. 1999 in Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank, T Nagar Branch. Ex. P. 2 is the said cheque. The cheque was presented in Andra Bank, T Nagar Branch, but the same was returned with an endorsement that there is no sufficient funds in the account of the drawer. Ex. P. 3 is the memo and Ex. P. 4 is the debit advice. On 11. 10. 1999 the complainant had sent a notice to the accused informing about the return of the cheque. Ex. P. 5 is the postal receipt for having sent the notice by registered post. Ex. P. 7 is the returned cover.