K MATHIVAHAN Vs. SURIYAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Animadverting upon the judgment dated 13-3-2007 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram in Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 2005 confirming the judgment dated 17-5-2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Villupuram in C. C. No. 114 of 2003, this criminal revision petition is focussed.

(2.) A 'resume' of facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Criminal Revision petition would run thus : (i) The police laid the police report in terms of Section 173 of Cr. P. C. as against the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Inasmuch as the accused pleaded not guilty, trial was conducted. (ii) On the side of the prosecution, P. Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs. P1 to P5 were marked. On defence side, R. W. 1 was examined and Ex. R1 was marked. Ultimately, the trial Court convicted the accused and imposed the sentences as under : Offences Sentence imposed Fine amount 138 Negotiable Six months rigorous Compensation of Instruments Act imprisonment Rs. 25,000/- payable to the complainant (in default, to undergo three months imprisonment) (iii) Challenging and impugning the judgment of the lower Court, the accused preferred appeal in C. A. No. 47 of 2005 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram, which Court confirmed the judgment of the lower Court in all aspects. (iv) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgments of both the Courts below, this revision is focussed on various grounds, the gist and kernel, the nitty gritty, the pith and marrow of them would run thus: (i) Both the Courts below failed to take into account the fact that the pre-statutory notice does not contain the proper cheque number as the cheque number referred to in the said notice was only 07053 whereas in the complaint, the cheque Number is referred to as 072053 and as such, the statutory notice is bad for want of correct particulars. But, both the courts below ignored the said fact. (ii) Even though the transactions between the complainant and the accused was only to the tune of Rs. 85,000/- the cheque was filled up for a sum of Rs. 1.5 lakhs. The factum of even the said sum of Rs. 85,000/- having been discharged also was not upheld by both the courts below. (iii) Accordingly, he prayed for setting aside the judgment of both the courts below and for acquitting the accused.

(3.) Heard both sides.