IMPORTANT POINT
Amount of compensation and sentence cannot be on higher side.

C.S. Karnan, J.—The revision petitioner/appellant/accused has preferred the present revision in Crl.R.C.No.78 of 2012 to set aside the judgment passed in C.A.No.347 of 2006, on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-V, Chennai, dated 3.1.2012, confirming the order passed in C.C.No.1255 of 2003, on the file of the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, dated 14.11.2006.

2. The respondent/complainant’s case is as follows:

The accused availed financial assistance from the complainant in April 2000 to the extent of Rs.20,00,000 and undertook to pay the entire dues before the end of December 2001. Inspite of repeated requests made by the complainant for the repayment of the said loan, the accused failed to repay the loan and as on November 2002, a sum of Rs.28,00,000 is due and payable towards the principal and interest. Subsequently, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.556371, dated 20.12.2002, drawn on Canara Bank, St. Mary’s Road, Chennai-18, for a sum of Rs.28,00,000/- to and in favour of the complainant. When the complainant presented the said cheque for encashment with his bankers viz., Karnataka Bank Limited, R.A. Puram, Chennai, on 20.12.2002, it was returned unpaid with an endorsement of “funds insufficient” through return memo dated 26.12.2002 and the same was intimated by his bankers by debit advice dated 27.12.2002. The complainant sent a lawyer’s notice to the accused on 3.1.2003, which was received by the accused on 4.1.2003. Inspite of receipt of notice, the accused failed to effect payment of the cheque amount. Hence, the complainant had filed a complaint against the accused for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act before the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.

3. On being questioned, the accused pleaded not guilty and hence trial was conducted. On the complainant’s side, three witnesses were examined and 11 documents were marked as Ex.Pl to P11 viz., Ex. Pl cheque dated 20.12.2002, Ex. P2 return memo, Ex. P3 debit advice, Ex. P4 copy of lawyer’s notice dated 3.1.2003, Ex. P5 acknowledgment card Ex. P6 letter written by the complainant to the accused dated 2.12.2002, Ex. P7 statement of accounts, Ex.P8 agreement, Ex.P9 statement of complainant’s account pertaining to the month of May 1999, Ex.P10 power of attorney given to PW2, Ex.P11 statement of complainant’s account pertaining to the months of April and May 1999. On the side of the accused, two witnesses were examined and three documents were marked as Ex. R1, R2 and R3, viz., Ex. R1 letter written to Inspector, Ex.R2-power of attorney letter, Ex.R3 statement of accounts.

4. PW1, the complainant had adduced evidence which is corroborative with the statements made by him in the complaint and in support of his evidence, he had marked the exhibits listed as Exs.Pl to P6. PW1 had further deposed that the accused was aware of the interest charged on the loan and that the accused used to send him statement of accounts, on a yearly basis and that the last statement of account submitted by the accused has been marked as Ex.P7. PW l deposed that after filing of the case, the accused had approached him in the year 2002 and had issued another cheque for part payment of the loan of Rs.10,00,000 procured by him and that this cheque had also been dishonoured. PW1 deposed that the accused had approached him, during the pendency of the case and had given a compromise letter (Ex.P8).

5. PW2, G.S. Ramarao had adduced evidence that he is employed as the Accounts Assistant in Karnataka Bank, R.A. Puram Branch and that the power of attorney given by his bank had been marked as Ex. P10. PW2 deposed that the bank account statement of complainant in their bank for the months of April and May 1999 had been marked as Ex. P11 and as per the bank account statement, the complainant had advanced a loan of Rs.20,00,000 to the accused.

6. PW3, Shiv Agarwal, adduced evidence that PW1 is his father and that he is