ANIL Vs. SURESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has preferred this revision petition challenging the judgment dated 24/03/2017 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Barwani in Criminal Appeal No. 115/2016, affirming the judgment dated 23/07/2016 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anjad, District-Barwani in Criminal Case No. 486/2013, whereby the applicant has been convicted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced to undergo 6 months S.I. And the applicant was also directed to pay Rs.3.50 Lacs to the complainant/respondent as compensation under Section 357(3) of the Cr.P.C.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the present applicant had borrowed Rs.

(3.) 0 Lacs from the complainant/respondent and issued cheque No. 022823 dated 15/03/2013 amounting to Rs.3.0 Lacs in favour of the complainant/respondent. The complainant/respondent presented the aforesaid cheque in his bank account for encashment but it was returned unserved with an endorsement "insufficient funds", vide return memo dated 16/04/2013. Complainant/respondent issued a statutory demand notice to the applicant, however, the applicant refused to receive it. When the applicant did not pay the cheque amount, then the complainant/respondent presented a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anjad, District-Barwani. 3. On appearance the applicant was questioned under Section 251 of the Cr.P.C. and he denied the acquisition. He took a plea that he is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present crime, however, he has not examined any witness in his defence. The complainant/respondent examined himself as CW-1 and marked exhibit as P/1 to P/6. After considering the material available on record and hearing either side, the trial Court vide judgment dated 23/07/2016, convicted the applicant/accused for the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced to undergo S.I. for 6 months and also directed him to pay Rs.3.50 Lacs to the complainant/respondent as compensation under Section 357(3) of the Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment, the applicant has preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court and the appellate Court vide impugned judgment dated 24/03/2017 affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court to the applicant/accused. Challenging the findings recorded by the courts below, the applicant/accused has filed the present revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C.