The central legal point established in the judgment is the strict application of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, emphasizing the need for evidence of debt and the consequences of dishonor of a cheque.

1. The revision petitioner herein / respondent / complainant has preferred the Criminal Revision in Crl.R.C.No.334 of 2005 against the order of conviction and sentence dated 16.12.2004 in C.A.No.97 of 2003, on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, confirming the order of conviction of sentence dated 04.03.2003 in C.C.No.8325 of 2003 on the file of XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet.

2. The complainant's case is as follows:- The accused 1 and 2 have borrowed a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- from the complainant, for production expenses of the movie "Vannath Tamizh Pattu", and had promised to repay the said loan, before the release of the movie. But as they did not repay the loan even after release of the movie, the complainant had demanded them to make the payment. The second accused had issued a cheque dated 06.09.2000, drawn on Andhra Bank, T.Nagar Branch, for a sum of Rs.9,00,000/-, in favour of the complainant. The complainant presented the said cheque for encashment with his banker, namely, Bank of Baroda, T.Nagar Branch on 07.09.2000, but it was returned unpaid on 09.09.2000, due to insufficient funds in the account of the accused. The complainant issued a lawyer's notice to the accused on 18.09.2000 by registered post, but the accused had refused to receive it. Subsequently, the said notice was received by the accused on 20.09.2000 but they had neither replied to the notice nor paid the said amount. Hence, the complainant had preferred a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused before the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet.

3. The accused pleaded not guilty before the trial Court and hence enquiry was initiated.

4. On the side of the complainant, three witnesses were examined and ten documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P10. On the accused side, no witness was examined but nine documents were marked as Exs.R1 to R9.

5. P.W.1, Suresh had adduced evidence that the first accused is the proprietor of "Aishwarya Combines"; that the second accused is his son and is the power of attorney holder of the first accused; that both the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.9,00,000/-from him, in order to produce a movie titled "Vanna Tamizh Pattu"; that in order to repay the said amount, the second accused had issued a cheque dated 06.09.2000 (EX.P1) drawn on Andhra Bank, T.Nagar Branch; that he presented the said cheque with his banker, namely, Bank of Baroda, T.Nagar Branch, on 07.09.2000 for encashment; that it was returned unpaid on 11.09.2000 with the endorsement of "insufficient funds" in the account of accused through return memo marked as Ex.P2; that the debit advice for the return of cheque, sent by his bank has been marked as Ex.P3; that a lawyer's notice (Ex.P4) was sent to the accused on 18.09.2000; that the postal receipt for sending the notice has been marked as Ex.P5; that as the said notices were not received by both the accused, it was returned and that the returned covers had been marked as Exs.P6 and P7; that the notice was sent by certified copy of posting and the postal receipt for the same has been marked as Ex.P8.

6. The Officer of Andhra Bank, T.Nagar Branch, Wilson was examined as P.W.2. P.W.2 had deposed evidence that the authorization letter issued by his bank empowering him to adduce evidence has been marked as Ex.P9; that the accused had an account in their bank; that when the impugned cheque came for encashment in their bank on 09.09.2000, the balance amount in the account of the accused was only Rs.2,109/-; that due to this, the impugned cheque was returned unpaid; that the copy of the bank account statement of accused has been marked as Ex.P10.

7. The Technical manager of Bank of Baroda, T.Nagar Branch was examined as P.W.3. P.W.3, in his evidence deposed that the complainant had a savings account, in their bank; that the complainant had deposited the said impugned cheque in their bank and that it was returned unpaid due to insufficient funds in