The failure of the complainant to tender for further cross-examination led to the discarding of his evidence, which invalidated the judgments of conviction.

ORDER

1. The present petitioner was accused in C.C.No.17851/2006, in the Court of the learned XV Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the 'trial Court'). By its judgment dated 22.09.2012, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'N.I.Act') and was sentenced accordingly.

2. The summary of the case of the complainant in the trial Court was that the complainant and the accused were acquainted with each other. At the request of accused, in December 2004, the complainant gave him a hand loan of a sum of Rs. 1 lakh, which loan amount the accused had agreed to repay within three months. The accused did not keep up his promise towards the repayment of the loan amount. However, at the demand made by the complainant for the repayment of the loan amount, the accused issued him a cheque bearing No.118254, dated 01.02.2006, drawn on Canara Bank, Hosur Branch, in favour of the complainant for a sum of Rs. 1 lakh. The said cheque when presented for realisation by the complainant through his Banker on 01.02.2006, the same came to be returned with an endorsement 'funds insufficient'. The complainant got issued a legal notice to the accused on 11.02.2006 both under Registered Post Acknowledgement Due and under Certificate of Posting demanding the payment of the cheque amount. The accused gave an untenable reply, but, did not pay the cheque amount which constrained the complainant to institute a criminal case against the accused in the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act.

3. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, charges were framed against the accused for the alleged offences.

4. The complainant in order to prove his case, got himself examined as PW-1 and got marked nine documents from Exs.P-1 to P-9. On behalf of the accused, the accused got himself examined as DW-1 and got marked documents from Exs.D-1 to D-19.

5. After hearing both side, the trial Court by its impugned judgment dated 22.09.2012, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act and sentenced him accordingly.

6. Challenging the said order, the accused has preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.608/2012, before the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court (Sessions)-XI, Bengaluru, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'Sessions Judge's Court), which by its judgment dated 19.01.2013, dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court. It is against these judgments of conviction, the accused has preferred this revision petition.

7. The respondent is being represented by his learned counsel.

8. Records from the trial Court and Sessions Judge's Court pertaining to the matter were called for and the same are placed before the Court.

9. Heard the arguments of learned counsel from both side. Perused the materials placed before this Court.

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

11. After hearing the learned counsel from both side, he only point that arises for my consideration is,-

'Whether the impugned judgments suffer from perversity, illegality, impropriety warranting any interference at the hands of this Court'.

12. The learned counsel for the petitioner in his argument firstly submitted that the complainant as PW-1 has not tendered for his further cross-examination by the accused for which he was summoned by allowing the application filed by the accused under Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'). Further, the complainant himself filed a similar application seeking permission to tender himself for cross-examination by the accused and the said application came to be allowed, still he did not tender himself for cross-examination by the accused. As such, the evidence of PW-1 deserv