1. This Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the petitioner G.K. Jaya Raman, assailing the judgment in Criminal Revision Petition No.43 of 2008 dated 23-03-2009 passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Nellore, whereby the learned Sessions Judge while confirming the conviction and sentence of imprisonment of the accused, passed by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore in C.C. No.777 of 2005 dated 09-04-2008 for the offence under Section 138 read with 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (for short “NI Act”), enhanced the compensation amount from Rs.75,000/- to Rs.1,29,000/-.

2. The petitioner herein is accused – G.K. Jaya Raman and respondent No.1 firm is the complainant – M/s. Nambur Laboratories.

3. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner and respondent No.1 are referred to as accused and the complainant respectively.

4. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as under:

The complainant firm is manufacturing aqua, poultry and nutritious products under the name and style of Nambur Laboratires, whereas the accused is proprietor of Balaji Aqua. The accused got business transaction with the complainant firm on credit basis and indebted to a tune of Rs.1,29,000-60 paise, for which he issued a cheque in favour of the complainant, drawn on Indian Bank, Marakkanam Branch, on 29-07-2005 and when the same was presented by the complainant for encashment, it was dishonoured on the ground of insufficient funds and the same was intimated to the complainant by its banker State Bank of India, Barracks Branch, Nellore on 19-08-2005 by way of memo. Hence, complainant issued a legal notice to the accused on 25-08-2005 under registered post with acknowledgement due demanding to pay the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice, which the accused got managed to return to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant filed the complaint against the accused under Section 138 and 142(b) of NI Act.

5. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the case against the accused under Section 138 read with 142 of NI Act.

6. When the accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 138 read with 142 of the NI Act, he denied the offence and pleaded not guilty.

7. To prove his case, the complainant got himself examined as PW.1 and its Manager as PW.2 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-14.

8. After closure of the evidence on behalf of the complainant, when the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for the incriminating material against him in the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, he denied the same and got himself examined as DW.1, but no documentary evidence was adduced.

9. The defence of the accused as DW.1 is that he never indebted the amount alleged by the complainant, but he issued cheque in question, which was blank except his signature and seal, to the complainant for security purpose at the request of the complainant’s request while entering the business with it. However, as some disputes arose between them, the complainant taking advantage of the blank cheque, which was issued for security purpose, got all other columns of the cheque filled with different ink and presented the same with its banker for the purpose of this case and managed to secure the legal notice without being served on him.

10. There is no dispute about the cheque being issued by the accused to the complainant, complainant presenting the cheque with its banker and dishonour of the same due to insufficient funds. It is also an admitted fact that PW.1 got issued the legal notice to the accused to the business address that was given by the accused.

11. In the above circumstances and considering the evidence on record, the learned Magistrate observing that when issuance of the cheque in question was admitted by the accused and the business address, mentioned on Ex.P-5 unserved postal cover of the legal notice, given by him as correct one, the burden i