P ARUMUGAM Vs. P VELUSAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397(i) and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code as against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Erode made in C.A.No.76 of 2002 dated 23.02.2004 confirming the order passed in C.C.No.434 of 2000 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.3, Erode dated 20.03.2002. The accused in C.C.No.434 of 2000 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Erode, after having been convicted by the said court for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 preferred unsuccessfully an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC No.I, Erode in C.A.No.76 of 2002 and thereafter has approached this court by way of the present criminal revision case under Section 397(1) and 401 Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) THE respondent herein preferred a private complaint on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Erode alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the petitioner herein based on the contention that the petitioner herein borrowed a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- from the petitioner on 18.06.2000 and issued a cheque dated 18.08.2000 drawn on Kadathur branch of Bank of Baroda for the said amount and that the said cheque, when presented for encashment on 31.08.2000, was dishonoured stating insufficiency of funds as the reason for such dishonour. THE facts alleged in the private complaint are as follows:- i) On 18.06.2000, the petitioner herein/accused borrowed a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- from the respondent herein/complainant and thereafter for the discharge of the said debt issued a cheque dated 18.08.2000 drawn on Bank of Baroda, Kadathur branch for the above said amount. When the said cheque was presented for collection through Indian Overseas Bank, Erode on 31.08.2000, the same was returned with an endorsement "funds insufficient". THEreafter, the respondent herein issued a statutory notice on 22.09.2000 through his advocate demanding payment. Though the petitioner/ accused received the said notice, he neither gave a reply nor paid the amount as demanded in the notice and hence the offence under Section 138 read with 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act became complete for which the petitioner herein/accused should be prosecuted and punished accordingly.

(3.) THE said judgment of conviction and the order of sentence of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Erode dated 20.03.2002 was challenged by the petitioner herein/accused before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC No.1, Erode in Criminal Appeal No.76 of 2002. THE learned appellate judge, after hearing, concurred with the finding of the trial court and confirmed the conviction and the sentence by his judgment dated 22.03.2004.