The revision petitioner / appellant / accused has preferred the present revision against the judgment passed in C.A.No.140 of 2005, on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court-II) Salem, confirming the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.65 of 2004, on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Salem.
2. The short facts of the case are as follows:-
The accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- as loan from the complainant, for his family and business expenses on 15.09.2003. In order to discharge the said debt, the accused had issued a cheque dated 03.10.2003, drawn on State Bank of India, Salem-1, for Rs.1,40,000/- to and in favour of the complainant. When the complainant deposited the said cheque for collection with his bankers, viz., State Bank of India, Salem Branch on 03.11.2003, it was returned with an endorsement of insufficient funds in the account of the accused on 04.11.2003. The complainant sent a lawyer's notice to the accused on 10.11.2003, which was received by the accused but in spite of receipt of notice, the accused had neither replied nor paid the chequea mount. Hence, the complainant has filed the case against the accused for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. On being questioned, the accused pleaded not guilty and hence, trial was conducted. On the complainant's side, one witness was examined and six documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P6. On the side of the accused, two witnesses were examined and two documents were marked as Exs.R1 and R2. The learned Judicial Magistrate, on recording the evidence of the witnesses and on scrutiny of oral and documentary exhibits, held the accused guilty of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo further period of simple imprisonment for one month.
4. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court, the accused had preferred an appeal in C.A.No.140 of 2005, before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court-II), Salem. The learned appellate Court Judge, on scrutiny of order of trial Court and on scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of trial Court. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his appeal, the appellant has preferred the present revision.
5. During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent / complainant had expired and hence, the legal-heirs of the deceased had been brought on record as the respondents 2 to 4 as per orders in C.M.P.No.9 of 2007, dated 05.07.2007, on the petition filed by the revision petitioner herein.
6. During the pendency of the revision, affidavit had been filed by the second and third respondents in Crl.M.P. in Crl.R.C.No.1671 of 2007 stating that the respondents 2 to 4 and the revision petitioner / accused had entered into a compromise and that as per the compromise, the second respondent had received a sum of Rs.80,000/- being the part of the cheque amount of Rs.1,40,000/- as her share from the revision petitioner / accused in full quit of the cheque amount in the above matter and that the third respondent had received a sum of Rs.60,000/- being the part of the cheque amount of Rs.1,40,000/- towards her share as well as her minor son's share from the revision petitioner / accused in full quit of the cheque amount in the above matter and that the matter had been settled amicably.
7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has submitted that the matter has been settled amicably between the parties and has entreated this Court to set-aside the orders passed by the Courts below and to acquit the petitioner.
8. The learned counsel for the respondent / complainant has also admitted the said compromise and has stated that he has no objection to set aside the orders of the Courts below.
9. On considering the submissions made by the learned counsels on either side and on scrutiny of affidavit filed by the second and third respondents in Crl.M.P. in Crl.R.C.No.1671 of 2007 and the stamp receipts showing proof of payment to the respondents, this Court is inclined to allow the revision and sets free the accused.
10. In the result, the above revision is allowed. Consequently, the conviction and sentence passed in C.A.No.140 of 2005, on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem (Fast Track Court-II), dated 10.08.2007, confirming the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.65 of 2004, on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Salem dated 14.09.2005, is set-aside.