This revision arises against two concurrent judgments of Courts below convicting petitioner for offence u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentencing him to 1 year S.I. and directing him to pay cheque amount of Rs.7,50,000/- towards compensation i/d 3 months S.I.
2. Respondent moved a prosecution informing that petitioner/accused borrowed a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- and issued a cheque bearing 046856 dated 09.03.2011 drawn on Canara Bank, Mount Road Branch, Chennai, towards repayment thereof, which upon presentation was returned unpaid for the reason 'Funds Insufficient'. Respondent following the procedure envisaged u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, preferred a complaint and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.2167 of 2011 on the file of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Magisterial Level I, Egmore.
3. Before trial Court, respondent examined himself and marked 5 exhibits. None were examined on behalf of defence nor were any exhibits marked. Trial Court, under judgment dated 10.10.2012, convicted petitioner/accused for offence u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to 1 year S.I. and directed him to pay cheque amount of Rs.7,50,000/- towards compensation i/d 3 months S.I. There against, petitioner/accused preferred C.A.No.194 of 2012 on the file of learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, which came to be dismissed under judgment dated 04.12.2013. Hence, this revision.
4. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent.
5. In convicting petitioner/accused, Courts below found that issuance of cheque and the signature thereon have not been disputed. Though it was the contention of petitioner/accused that he has not borrowed any amount from respondent/complainant, he has not chosen to cause a reply to the statutory notice denying his liability. Further, petitioner/accused neither examined himself nor marked any document to prove his case and hence, he has failed to rebut the presumption u/s.139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On the above reasoning, Courts below found that the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt and accordingly, arrived at a finding of conviction. This Court finds that a well-reasoned approach has been adopted by Courts below in convicting petitioner/accused.
The Criminal Revision Case shall stand dismissed.
15.09.2017 Index:yes/no Internet:yes gm To
1.The VI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai.
2.The Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Magisterial Level I, Egmore.
C.T.SELVAM, J gm Crl.R.C.No.1613 of 2013 15.09.2017