This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner – accused, R. Rajendran, assailing the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.8 of 2007 dated 17-03-2008 passed by the learned Special Judge for trial of offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – cum -VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad confirming the conviction and sentence passed against him (accused) for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1988 (for short “NI Act”) in C.C. No.762 of 2002 dated 02/05-01-2007 passed by the learned XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad.

2. The revision petitioner is accused, respondent No.1 is the complainant and respondent No.2 is the State.

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

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

In the month of February and March 2001, accused approached the complainant for financial assistance for his business needs and the complainant extended hand loan in installments, totalling to Rs.6,45,000/-and the accused promised to repay the same by the end of December 2001 and issued three cheques bearing Nos.695352, 695353 and 695350 dated 18-12-2001, 19-12-2001 and 20-12-2001 for Rs.1,85,000/-, Rs.1,85,000/-and Rs.2,75,000/-respectively of Karur Vysya Bank Limited, Chennai Branch towards discharge of the handloan. However, when the cheques were presented for encashment, they were returned dishonoured for the reason of “insufficient funds” vide cheque return memos dated 08-04-2002 and 09-04-2002. Therefore, the complainant got issued demand notice to the accused on 19-04-2002 and the accused in spite of receipt of the notice neither paid the amount nor issued reply. Hence, he was constrained to approach the Court against the accused by filing private complaint for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act.

5. When the trial Court examined the accused under Section 251 Cr.P.C., he denied the case against him and pleaded not guilty.

6. To substantiate his case, the complainant got himself examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-7 documents. After closure of the evidence on behalf of the complainant, when the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating material against him, but no oral or documentary evidence was adduced on his behalf.

7. However, the plea of the accused is that he issued signed blank cheques to the complainant in an immovable property transaction and that in spite of closure of the said property transaction by executing a registered sale deed after payment of the entire sale consideration, the complainant misused the cheques in question by filling those signed blank cheques and filed this case for wrongful gain.

8. The trial Court after an elaborate consideration of both oral and documentary evidence available on record, found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act holding that the accused failed to establish his case of signed blank cheques theory and that he also failed to establish that the cheques in question were not issued towards any legally enforceable debt, and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one (1) year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months and ordered to pay Rs.5,000/-out of the fine amount to the complainant towards defraying expenses. Aggrieved by the same, accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.8 of 2007 before the learned Special Judge for trial of offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – cum -VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad. The learned Sessions Judge after re-appreciating the entire oral and documentary evidence on record dismissed the appeal confirming the judgm