This Court has reserved orders in this revision on 24.11.2016. 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 fine of Rs.2,000/- i/d 1 month S.I.
3. Respondent/complainant moved a prosecution informing that petitioner/accused borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from him and towards repayment thereof, cheque bearing No.028458 dated 21.05.2013 drawn on ICICI Bank, Salem, Shevapet Branch, 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 seven exhibits. Petitioner/accused examined two witnesses and marked two exhibits.
5. On appreciation of materials before it, the trial Court, under judgment dated 28.10.2014, convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to 6 months S.I. and fine of Rs.2,000/- i/d 1 month S.I. The appeal preferred by petitioner in C.A.No.7 of 2015 on the file of learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem, came to be dismissed under judgment dated 07.01.2016. 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)It was the case of petitioner/accused that there was a Partnership Deed between him and respondent/complainant towards carrying out real estate business and in connection therewith, a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- has been given by respondent/complainant and the petitioner/accused has repaid the same within three months of borrowing. The cheque, given as security, has been misused by respondent/complainant towards preferring a false complaint against petitioner/accused. To prove such contention, petitioner/accused examined himself as DW-1 and one Karthikeyan as DW-2. Courts below found that petitioner/accused has not produced any document to substantiate that the amount borrowed on 07.01.2013 has been paid to the complainant. Though it was the case of petitioner/accused that he has repaid the amount in cash, which could be seen in the Partnership Deed, it is evidence of DW-2 that Ex.P1, cheque, has been given by petitioner/accused only to discharge the loan of Rs.3,00,000/- borrowed from respondent/complainant. Respondent/complainant has also proved his case through Ex.P7, statement of accounts maintained by ICICI Bank, Salem. In the afore stated position, Courts below have held that the very initial presumption available u/s.139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has not been rebutted.
(ii)The contention of accused that he is liable to pay any amount to the complainant has been rejected by Courts below on the reasoning that the accused himself has admitted that the cheque issued by him was dishonoured.
(iii)Courts below found that the complaint was lodged within the period of limitation.
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.
The Criminal Revision Case shall stand dismissed. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
07.03.2017 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes gm To
1.The III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem.
2.The Judicial Magistrate II, Salem.
C.T. SELVAM, J gm Crl.R.C.No.842 of 2016 07.03.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in