(1.) This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge at Chengalpattu, in C.A.No.37 of 2014, dtd. 17/12/2015, confirming the conviction and sentenced passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Alandur, in C.C.No.138 of 2014, dtd. 17/11/2014.
(2.) The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused would mainly contend that in this case, the trial Court and the First Appellate Court have erred in coming to a conclusion that the revision petitioner/accused has committed an offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is further contended that both the Courts below should not consider the contract as a valid contract and hence, there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and the respondent. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that both the Courts below went wrong in shifting the burden of proof upon the revision petitioner/accused to prove that the alleged agreement for debt dtd. 15/6/2013 is not genuine. The learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner/accused also contended that both the Courts below have failed to consider the fact that sufficient time was not given to the revision petitioner/accused to pay the cheque amount. Further, the complainant had issued a statutory notice to the accused demanding a sum of Rs.21,50,000.00 instead of the cheque amount of Rs.5,00,000.00 and hence, the notice sent by the complainant itself is not proper. Further, the learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that since no offence is made out against the revision petitioner/accused, the judgments passed by both the Courts below have to be set aside and the Criminal Revision Case has to be allowed.
(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant would vehemently contend that the trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced on the side of the complainant, correctly passed an order convicting the accused under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentencing him to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment and also directed the accused to pay the cheque amount of Rs.5,00,000.00 towards compensation to the complainant. The First Appellate Court also, after analysing the entire evidence and facts and circumstances of the case, confirmed the order passed by the trial Court and therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by both the Courts below. Hence, the learned counsel for the respondent prayed that the orders passed by both the Courts below have to be confirmed and the Criminal Revision Case has to be dismissed.