This Court has reserved orders in this revision on 11.08.2017. Today, the matter is listed under the caption 'for orders'.
2. 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 2 years R.I. and each fine of Rs.5,000/- i/d 2 months S.I.
3. Respondent/complainant moved a prosecution informing that first accused used to purchased cotton yarn on credit basis from him and there was an outstanding of Rs.2,35,000/- payable by first accused. Towards discharge of the said liability, second accused issued a cheque dated 20.10.2005 drawn on Bank of India, R.S.Puram branch, Coimbatore. Upon presentation, the cheque 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. The complaint was taken on file in S.T.C.No.2528 of 2006 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate I, Coimbatore.
4. Before trial Court, respondent/complainant examined himself and marked 6 exhibits. None were examined on behalf of defence nor were any exhibits marked. On appreciation of materials before it, trial Court, under judgment dated 11.08.2009, convicted petitioner/accused and sentenced them to 2 year R.I. and each to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- i/d. 2 months S.I. There against, petitioner/accused preferred an appeal in C.A.No.107 of 2009 on the file of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court II, Coimbatore, which came to be dismissed under judgment dated 30.04.2010. Hence, this revision.
5. Heard learned counsel for petitioner. There is no representation for the respondent.
6. In convicting the petitioner, Courts below have found that petitioner/accused has not disputed issuance of cheque and the signature found therein. Petitioner/accused has not chosen to examine himself to prove his case and has not caused reply to the statutory notice denying the liability. Further, a perusal of Ex.P2, Account Statement, revealed that there was money transactions between parties. For the aforesaid reasons and for other reasons, Courts below have found that respondent/complainant has clearly proved his case and petitioner/accused has failed to rebut the presumption u/s.139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the judgments under challenge.
C.T.SELVAM, J kpr The Criminal Revision Case shall stand dismissed. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
05.10.2017 Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no To
1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II,Coimbatore
2.The Judicial Magistrate I, Coimbatore Crl.R.C.No.708 of 2010