M SIVAKUMAR Vs. S RAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgement in Crl.A.No.26 of 2009 dated 31.03.2010, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge of the Nilgiri District at Uthagamandalam, reversing the conviction and sentence imposed on the respondent/accused, by the judgement dated 07.12.2009 made in S.T.C.No.101 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kothagiri, Nilgiri District, thereby convicting the respondent for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs. 3,000.00 in default, simple imprisonment for six months.

(2.) The facts of the private complaint preferred under section 200 of Crimial P.C. 1973 for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act are as follows :- The accused issued cheque to the tune of Rs. 2 lakhs dated 19.12.2005, drawn on Canara Bank, Aravenue branch towards and discharge of his liability. The complainant presented the cheque for collection and it was returned dishonoured as "Insufficient funds". The complainant issued statutory notice on 31.12.2005 and the same was received by the accused on 02.01.2006. Even though after receipt of the notice, the accused did not make the payment and as such the complainant filed a complaint before the trial Court. After filing the complaint, the accused issued reply notice on 27.02.2006 denying the avernments made in the statutory notice. The complaint was taken on file and copies of the same furnished to the accused and when the offence was explained to the accused, he pleaded not guilty.

(3.) The complainant examined as P.W.1 and the cheque in dispute was marked as Ex.P.1; the return memo marked as Ex.P.2; the advise memo marked as Ex.P.3; the statutory notice was marked as Ex.P.4; the acknowledgement of the notice was marked as Ex.P.5; postal receipt of the said notice was marked as Ex.P.6; and the reply notice issued by the accused was marked as Ex.P.7.