T VENKATESAN Vs. NAGARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner stands convicted by Judicial Magistrate II, Salem in C.C.No.394 of 2000 for an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment and pay a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/= in default to undergo three months simple simple imprisonment and the said conviction and sentence was confirmed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge(Fast Track Court I), Salem in C.A.No.77 of 2004. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred this revision.

(2.) THE case of the complainant is that on 20.1.1997, the accused borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/= from the father of the complainant and also executed a pro note in favour of the father and subsequently, on 30.12.1997, the accused issued a cheque for Rs.1,50,000/= in favour of the complainant's father and on presentation of the cheque in the bank, it has been returned for insufficiency of funds. A notice was given on 4.7.1998 and the accused met the father of the complainant and promised to repay the whole amount. Subsequently, the father of the complainant fell sick and he was bedridden. Whileso, on 5.6.2000, the accused gave a cheque for Rs.1,50,000/= in favour of the complainant and the cheque was presented in the bank, it returned for insufficiency of funds. THE complainant sent a notice on 27.6.2000 and inspite of that, the accused did not make any payment nor paid any amount. Hence, the complaint was filed.

(3.) THIS court considered the submission made by both the parties. Admittedly, in this case, the accused had borrowed amount only from the father of the complainant. Therefore, there is a liability for the accused towards the father of the complainant. The question is whether, if a cheque is given to a son for the loan obtained from his father, is it possible for the son to take legal action against the borrower.