K DEENADAYALAN Vs. A K SUMATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE revisions have been preferred against the judgments in C. A. No. 119 and 120 of 2002 on the file of the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The accused in C. C. No. 4270 and 3061 of 1997 on the file of the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, was tried for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the basis of the private complaint preferred by the complainant under Section 200 of Cr. P. C.

(2.) THE learned trial judge had found the accused guilty under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and convicted and sentenced to undergo two months RI and a fine of Rs. 5000/- with default sentence in C. C. No. 4270/1997 and has also convicted and sentenced the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to undergo two months RI and a fine of Rs. 5000/- with default sentence in C. C. No. 3061 of 1997. The learned trial judge has further directed under Section 357 (1) of Cr. P. C. , that out of the fine amount a sum of Rs. 4000/- each was ordered to be paid to the complainant as compensation. Aggrieved by the findings of the learned trial judge, the accused had preferred appeals in C. A. No. 119 of 2002 against the judgment in C. C. No. 4270 of 1997 and C. A. 120 of 2002 against the judgment in C. C. No. 3061 of 1997 before the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, who after careful scrutiny of the evidence of both oral and documentary and after due deliberation on the submissions made by both the counsels, had confirmed the findings of the learned trial judge in both the cases, which necessitated the accused to prefer these revisions.

(3.) 3 (A) The brief facts in the complaint preferred in C. C. No. 4270 of 1997 is that in order to discharge the debt incurred by him to the complainant, the accused had drawn three cheques each for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- dated 25. 3. 1997, 25. 4. 1997 and 25. 5. 1997 in favour of the complainant and when those cheques were presented for collection in the Central Bank of India, George Town branch, Chennai, they were returned with an endorsement 'insufficient funds'. A notice was issued by the complainant on 6. 6. 1997 as required under Section 138 (b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act which was acknowledged by the accused on 9. 6. 1997. The accused has failed to make any payment. 3 (b) On the side of the complainant P. W. 1 to P. W. 4 were examined and Ex. P. 1 to Ex. P. 13 were marked. 3 (c) P. W. 1 is the complainant who would narrate what he has stated in the compliant. 3 (d) P. W. 2 is the bank official of Central Co-operative bank, Porur branch, wherein the complainant is having his account. He would depose that cheques Ex. P. 1 to Ex. P. 3 were presented in his bank for collection but on the date of presentation of those cheques there was only a sum of Rs. 1001/- in the credit of the account of the accused. 3 (c) P. W. 3 would depose that the accused had issued a cheque for Rs. 60,000/- in the name of the complainant and requested to discharge the debt due to P. W. 3 and P. W. 4, and the complainant had given Rs. 40,000/- to P. W. 3. 3 (d) P. W. 4 has deposed that he had entered into an agreement for the purchase of 25 cents land and has paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as advance. The accused promised to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- together with compensation amount of Rs. 10,000/ -. 3 (e) On the above evidence when incriminating circumstances were put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr. P. C. , the accused had denied his complicity with the crime. The accused has examined three witnesses on his side. 3 (f) After going through the oral and documentary evidence the learned trial judge held that the complainant has proved the guilt of the accused for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused as indicated above and the appeal preferred by the accused before the first appellate Court also ended against him. Hence, the accused has preferred Crl. R. C. No. 242 of 2003 before this Court.