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 1 year S.I. and fine of Rs.5,000/- i/d 2 months S.I.
2. Respondent/complainant moved a prosecution informing that the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant finance company on 21.09.2002 and two postdated cheques dated 21.11.2002 and 21.12.2002 drawn on Canara Bank, Anna Salai, Chennai stood issued to him by petitioner towards repayment of borrowing, which upon presentation was returned unpaid for the reason 'Account Closed'. Respondent/complainant caused statutory notice and following the procedure envisaged under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a complaint had been filed.
3. Before the trial Court, respondent/complainant examined one witness and marked fifteen exhibits. Two witnesses were examined on behalf of the defence and seven exhibits were marked.
4. On appreciation of materials before it, trial Court, under judgment dated 26.06.2009, convicted petitioner and sentenced him to 1 year S.I. and fine of Rs.5,000/- i/d 2 months S.I. There against, petitioner preferred C.A.No.181 of 2009 on the file of learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Erode. Appellate Court, under judgment dated 21.06.2010, dismissed the appeal. There against, the present revision has been filed.
5. There is no appearance of both petitioner and respondent. Perused the materials on record.
6. In convicting the petitioner, Courts below have found that DW-1, Official of Canara Bank, Cutchery Road Branch, has clearly deposed that the cheques in question were issued by their Chennai Branch to the accused. Petitioner/accused, who has been examined as DW-2, has admitted issuance of cheques. Though it was the case of petitioner/accused that he has issued cheques towards security, which have been misused by respondent/ complainant, he has not proved such contention through oral and documentary evidence. Further, in cross-examination, petitioner/accused has failed to establish what he has stated in the reply notice and he has also admitted that he is liable to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- to respondent/complainant. Once the issuance of cheques is admitted, it is the duty of petitioner/accused to establish that he had issued cheques not towards a legally enforceable debt but only given towards security, which petitioner/accused has failed to do. On the above reasoning and for other reasons, Courts below arrived at a finding of conviction. This Court finds no error in the judgments under challenge. One further reason to concur with the finding of Courts below is that it is the claim of petitioner that he has issued four cheques to respondent/complainant and another cheque No.831451 to the sister concern of respondent/complainant and as on date, petitioner/accused is liable to pay only a sum of Rs.40,000/- and cheques issued towards security have been misused. The case may be seen as one of admitted liability with a false plea of having made payment there towards.
The Criminal Revision Case shall stand dismissed. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
31.07.2017 Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no gm To
1.The I Additional Sessions Judge, Erode.
2.The Judicial Magistrate II, Erode.
C.T. SELVAM, J gm Crl.R.C.No.867 of 2010 31.07.2017