This revision is preferred against the judgment dated 22.09.2010 made in C.A.No.106 of 2009 on the file of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.IV, Coimbatore at Tiruppur) affirming the conviction for offence u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in S.T.C.No.4062 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruppur under judgment dated 04.08.2009 and sentencing him to undergo 1 year S.I but modifying payment of compensation from Rs.42,00,000/- to Rs. 21,00,000/-.
2. Respondent/Complainant moved prosecution informing that cheque bearing No.301691 dated 01.02.2005 in a sum of Rs. 21,00,000/- drawn on Karur Vysia Bank stood issued to him by petitioner towards repayment of borrowing, which upon presentation was returned unpaid for the reason amount exceeds arrangements. Respondent/Complainant caused statutory notice and following the procedure envisaged under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, preferred complaint.
3. Before the trial Court, the respondent examined two witnesses and marked seven exhibits. The accused has examined himself as DW1 and no documents were marked on his side. On appreciation of materials before it, trial Court, under judgment dated 04.08.2009 in S.T.C.No.4062 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruppur, convicted the petitioner for offence u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo 1 year S.I and to pay a fine amount of Rs.42,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant u/s 357(3) Cr.P.C. There against, petitioner preferred C.A.No.106 of 2009 on the file of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.IV, Coimbatore at Tiruppur) which came to be dismissed on 22.09.2010 and partly modifying the sentence of payment of compensation from Rs.42,00,000/- to Rs. 21,00,000/- u/s 357(3) of Cr.P.C. Hence this revision.
4. Heard learned counsel for petitioner. There is no representation for respondent.
5. In convicting the petitioner/accused, Courts below have found as follows:
(i) The contention of petitioner/accused that the cheque was issued only towards collateral security when the petitioner/accused has transaction with the respondent/complainant in the year 2003-2004 has been negated by the Courts below on the reasoning that the issuance of cheque and signature thereon has not been disputed by petitioner/accused. When it was the case of petitioner/accused that the signature on the the back side of the cheque was not his, then, it is for him to establish under what circumstances he has issued the cheque and towards what purpose, which the petitioner has failed to do. Further, there was no explanation afforded by the petitioner/accused for not getting back the cheque which was issued towards collateral security on settlement of dues.
(ii) Though, petitioner has denied the signature on the back of the cheque, the same has not been returned by the Bank for the reason, "Forged one".
(iii) The contention of petitioner/accused that the Chit was not a registered one and the liability which arose on the base of Ex.P.1 cheque was not a legally enforcible debt, has been rejected on the reasoning that the petitioner/accused while examined as Dw1 has not denied that the Chit was a registered one, hence, it was not open to petitioner/accused to take such a stand.
(iv) Though petitioner/accused has contended that Ex.P.4 Pass Book issued by the RBRA funds in which the petitioner/accused himself has signed was a fabricated one, it was found that if the respondent/complainant intended to cheat petitioner/accused, then, he would have stated that the cheque amount was given as loan or otherwise. There was no necessity for respondent/complainant to fabricate document like Ex.P.4 Pass Book giving details of 21 months installments etc. For the aforesaid reasons and for other reasons, Courts below found that the respondent/complainant has proved his case and the petitioner/accused has failed to prove his case and accordingly arrived at a finding of conviction, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the judgment under challenge.
The Criminal Revision Case shall stand dismissed.