This Court has reserved orders in this revision on 30.11.2016. Today, the matter is listed under the caption 'for orders'.
2. This revision arises against two concurrent judgments of Courts below convicting the petitioner for offence u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentencing him to 6 months S.I. and to pay compensation of Rs.1,11,000/- to the complainant within 1 month i/d 3 months S.I.
3. Respondent/complainant moved a prosecution informing that petitioner/accused borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from him and towards repayment thereof, cheque bearing No.931585 dated 12.06.2013 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Gandhi Road, stood issued to him, which upon presentation was returned unpaid for the reason insufficient funds. Respondent/ complainant caused statutory notice and following the procedure envisaged under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a complaint had been filed.
4. Before the trial Court, respondent/complainant examined himself and marked nine exhibits. Petitioner/accused examined two witnesses and marked one exhibit.
5. On appreciation of materials before it, the trial Court, under judgment dated 24.07.2015, convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to 6 months S.I. and to pay compensation of Rs.1,11,000/- to the complainant within 1 month i/d 3 months S.I. The appeal preferred by petitioner in C.A.No.24 of 2015 on the file of learned District Judge II, Kancheepuram, came to be dismissed under judgment dated 23.09.2016. Hence, this revision.
6. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent. Perused the materials on record.
7. In convicting the petitioner, Courts below have found as follows:
(i)petitioner/accused himself admitted the signatures found in Exs.P2, P3, promissory notes and Ex.P4, cheque and borrowal of money. The contention of petitioner/accused that the cheque issued towards security purpose has been misused by respondent/complainant has been rejected on the reasoning that the evidence of DW-1, Bank Manager, was to the effect that the cheque in dispute was issued in the year 2009 and thereafter, they have not issued such kind of cheques, but, it is open to customers to use the cheque at any point of time. Therefore, it could not concluded that the petitioner/accused has given the cheque prior to the transaction.
(ii)From the evidence of DW-2, it was clear that the accused borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant and issued Exs.P2 and P3, promissory notes and Ex.P4, cheque.
(iii)Though it was the contention of petitioner/accused that he repaid the entire amount to the complainant, no document has been produced to substantiate such contention. Further, petitioner/accused has not taken any steps to take back the promissory notes and cheque.
On the above reasoning and other reasons, Courts below arrived at a finding of conviction. This Court finds no error in the judgments under challenge.
The Criminal Revision Case shall stand dismissed. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
31.01.2017 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes gm To
1.The District Judge II, Kancheepuram.
2.The Judicial Magistrate I, Kancheepuram.
C.T. SELVAM, J gm Crl.R.C.No.1262 of 2016 31.01.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in