ORDER :

The present petitioner as the accused was tried by the Court of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and J.M.F.C. at Sagar (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the “Trial Court”) in C.C.No.14/2004, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the “N.I. Act”) and was convicted for the said offence by its judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 04-04-2009.

Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred a Criminal Appeal in the Court of the Fast Track Court, Sagar (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the “Sessions Judge’s Court”) in Criminal Appeal No.45/2009.

The appeal was contested by the respondent who was the complainant in the Trial Court. The Sessions Judge’s Court in its order dated 05-03-2012 dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.14/2004.

Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused has preferred this revision petition.

2. The summary of the case of the complainant in the Trial Court is that, himself and accused were known to each other, since about six to eight years. Prior to the filing of the complaint, the accused had transactions with the complainant and was borrowing money whenever he was requiring the same. Likewise, the accused borrowed loan of a sum of Rs.90,000/-from him on 06-06-2004 in order to meet his family necessities and to meet his medical expenses. He had agreed to repay the said loan amount together with interest thereupon at the rate of Rs.1.5%, within a month. Since he did not repay the said loan amount, on the demand made by complainant for its repayment, he issued a cheque bearing No.0390655 dated 02-08-2004, in favour of the complainant, for a sum of Rs.90,000/-, drawn on Canara Bank, Kargal Branch. When the said cheque was presented for its realisation, the same came to be returned dis-honored, with the banker’s Shara ‘funds insufficient’. Thereafter, the complainant issued a legal notice, demanding the payment of the cheque amount. However, the accused instead of repaying the cheque amount, has issued an untenable reply, which constrained the complainant to institute a criminal case for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the accused.

3. The accused appeared in the Trial Court and contested the matter through his counsel. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, as such, the Trial Court proceeded to record the evidence wherein the complainant got himself examined as PW-1 and got marked documents from Exs.P-1 to P-4. From the accused’s side, the accused was examined as DW-1 and as many as thirty-nine documents were got marked from Exs.D-1 to D-39.

4. The Trial Court after recording the evidence led before it, by its impugned judgment of conviction dated 04-04-2009 convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.1,20,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

Challenging the same, the accused preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.45/2009 before the learned Session’s Judge’s Court, which after hearing both side, by its judgment dated 05-03-2012, dismissed the appeal, while confirming the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused has preferred this revision petition.

5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused is appearing through video conference and learned counsel for the respondent/complainant is appearing physically before the Court.

6. The Trial Court and Sessions Judge’s Court’s records were called for and the same are placed before this Court.

7. Heard the arguments from both side. Perused the materials placed before this Court including the Trial Court and Sessions Judge’s Court’s records.

8. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be henceforth referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

9. During the pe