The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the entitlement to compensation.

The revision petitioner / respondent / complainant has preferred this Criminal Revision in Crl.R.C.No.920 of 2006 against the judgment made in C.A.No.155 of 2004, on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Coimbatore modifying the conviction and sentence made in C.C.No.723 of 2003, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-III, Coimbatore.

2. The complainant's case is as follows:-

The accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- from the complainant, on 19.08.1998, promising to repay the said amount along with interest at the rate of 30% per annum. In order to effect repayment, the accused had issued a cheque dated 21.11.1998, drawn on Anna Co-operative Central Bank, Kallimandayam Branch, Dinidgul for a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- in favour of the complainant. The said cheque, on presentation by the complainant, with his bankers viz., Indian Bank, Avinashi Road Branch was returned unpaid on 23.12.1998 with the endorsement of "exceeds arrangement". The complainant was informed on 28.12.1998. The accused had promised to pay the amount before 30.12.1998 but had failed to do so. On 02.01.1999, the complainant issued a lawyer's notice to the accused, who received the same on 04.01.1999. But the accused had neither replied to the notice nor effected payment. Hence, the complainant had preferred a complaint against the accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, before the Judicial Magistrate-III, Coimbatore.

3. The accused had pleaded not guilty before the trial Court and hence trial was conducted.

4. On the complainant's side, two witnesses were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and six documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P6 viz., Ex.P1- cheque dated 19.08.1998, Ex.P2-bank return memo dated 23.12.1998, Ex.P3-debit advice, Ex.P4-lawyer's notice, Ex.P5-acknowledgment card, Ex.P6-bank account statement marked by P.W.2. On the side of the accused, no witness, no documents.

5. P.W.1, K.K.Veerasami, in his evidence deposed that on 19.08.1998, the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,75,000/-agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 30% per annum; that on the same day, the accused had paid an interest of Rs.13,125/-for three months, and had also issued a cheque, dated 21.11.1998, drawn on Central Co-operative Bank, Dindigul (Ex.P1) for a sum of Rs.1,75,000/-; that on the advise of the accused, he had deposited the said cheque with his bankers viz., Indian Bank, Avinashi Road Branch, on 14.12.1998; that the said cheque was returned unpaid, on 23.12.1998, with an endorsement of "exceeds arrangement" through return memo (Ex.P2); that the debit advice issued by his bankers were marked as Ex.P3; that the accused had promised to pay him the cheque amount before 30.12.1998; that as the accused did not pay the amount, he had sent a lawyer's notice to the accused on 02.01.1998 (Ex.P4); that the acknowledgment card for proof of receipt of notice has been marked as Ex.P5.

6. P.W.2, Nachimuthu, the Branch Manager of Co-operative Bank, Mandaiyam, Dindigul had adduced evidence that the said impugned cheque had been presented into their bank, for encashment on 24.12.1998; that as the balance amount in the account of the accused was only Rs.323/- it was returned unpaid; that the Bank account statement of the accused has been marked as Ex.P6.

7. It was argued on the side of the accused that the accused had made full and final payment of dues amounting to Rs.1,30,000/-to the complainant and had also given an additional interest of Rs.13,125/-and that the complainant had not given the cheque issued by the accused. It was also argued that the complainant, in order to get additional interest had misused the cheque issued by the accused to foist the present case. But, the learned Magistrate, on considering that no witnesses had been examined and no documentary evidence was put forth on the accused side to prove the said allegations was not inclined to accept the above contentions. The learned Magistrate, on