K KUMARAVEL Vs. P VENKTACHALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been preferred against the judgment in C.A.No.57/2002 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC.No.II), Salem, which had arisen out of the findings of the learned trial Judge in C.C.No.88 of 2000 on the file on the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Mettur, Salem.

(2.) THE short facts in the complaint preferred by the complainant under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act against the accused is that the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- on 10.10.1999 and in order to discharge the said subsisting loan, the accused had drawn a cheque for Rs.1,60,000/- in favour of the complainant on 6.1.2000 and also had drawn another cheque for Rs.30,000/- on 15.2.2000 in favour of the complainant and when those cheques were presented in the bank, they were returned with an endorsement that there is no sufficient funds in the accounts of the accused to honour the same. THE complainant had issued a notice as contemplated under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act on1 5.4.2000, which was received by the accused on 19.4.2000, but he has neither chosen to repay the debt amount nor sent any reply to the notice. Hence, the complaint.

(3.) ACCORDING to P.W.2, both Ex.P.1 & Ex.P.2 were forwarded to Punjab National Bank, Erode Branch, for realisation and both the cheques were returned from the Punjab National Bank, Erode Branch, wherein the accused is having his account as there is no sufficient funds in the accounts of the drawer of the cheque. Ex.P.3 & Ex.P.4 are the cheque return memos sent along with Ex.P.1 & Ex.P.2, impugned cheques. Under the original of Ex.P.5 the complainant had sent a notice to the accused which was received by the accused on 19.4.2000 under Ex.P.6-acknowledgment. Ex.P.7 is the statement of accounts for the accused's account in credit on the date of drawal of those cheques.