M NAGARAJA Vs. V LATCHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision case is directed against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, in the matter arising under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the very fact that the account was closed long before the date of cheque and the plea of issuing the post dated cheque for the loan availed on 03.06.2012, has not been taken into consideration by the Courts below. The Courts below have failed to consider the fact that there was private contract between the respondent/complainant and the revision petitioner/accused herein. The evidence of P.W.1 with regard to the circumstances under which the revision petitioner/accused borrowed money from him will clearly show that the respondent/complainant, had no acquaintance with the respondent/complainant. In the cross examination he has admitted the denomination of currencies. To prove the transaction, he has not examined the person, whom, according to the complainant, was present when the revision petitioner/accused borrowed money on 03.06.2012. The writings in the subject cheque was not that of the revision petitioner/accused . In the chief examination, P.W.1 had deposed that the accused gave a written cheque to him, whereas in the cross examination he has contradicted his own version in the chief examination and admits that the wordings, figures and date in the cheque were returned by him later.