1. The accused in C.C. No. 23 of 2007 on the file the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur is the revision petitioner in this Criminal Revision Case.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as “complainant” and “accused” as has been arrayed before the trial court.

3. The complainant/respondent herein, through her power of attorney agent/husband, has filed the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act complaining that the accused and his wife Sheeba have borrowed money as hand loan on several occasions for their urgent expenses and for repayment of the loan amount, the accused has handed over a cheque and promisory note in acknowledgment of the debt. As the accused did not repay the loan amount despite several demands made by the complainant, finally, the accused issued a consolidated cheque bearing No. 132177 dated 01.06.2006 for a total sum of Rs.4,00,000/- drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Gummudipoondi Branch in favour of the complainant. Prior to issuing the cheque, the accused had given a letter of undertaking dated 01.12.2005 undertaking to pay the amount payable by him as also the debt payable by his wife. According to the complainant, the accused assured him that the cheque, on presentation, will be honoured as there was sufficient amount in his account to honour it. However, when the complainant presented the cheque in question for clearance on 02.11.2006 with his bankers Indian Bank, Jawahar Nagar Branch, it was dishonoured on the ground “referred to drawer”. As the cheque was dishonoured, the complainant issued a statutory notice dated 10.12.2006 calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount. Though the notice was acknowledged by the accused, he has neither issued a reply notice or paid the cheque amount. Therefore, the complainant, through her power of attorney agent, has filed the complaint under Section 138 and 142 of The Negotiable Instruments Act.

4. The accused contested the complaint filed by complainant. During the course of trial, on behalf of the complainant, the husband of the complainant Tr. P. Venkatesan was examined as PW1 besides two other witnesses were examined as PWs 2 and 3. Exs. P1 to P33 were marked on behalf of the complainant. On behalf of the accused one Mrs. Manjula was examined as DW1, the wife of the accused Mrs. V.P. Sheeba was examined as DW2 and the accused himself was examined as DW3. On behalf of the accused, Exs. D1 to D9 have been marked.

5. The trial court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The accused was also directed to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- being the cheque amount under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. as fine. On deposit of the amount, the complainant was permitted to collect the cheque amount as compensation as contemplated under Sections 431 and 421 of Cr.P.C.

6. As against the judgment of conviction, the accused filed Criminal Appeal No.16 of 2012, unsuccessfully, inasmuch as the appellate Court confirmed the judgment of conviction passed by the trial court by the judgment dated 30.10.2012. As against the same, the accused is before this Court with this Criminal Revision Case.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the accused would mainly contend that even as per the admission of the complainant, the accused has borrowed only a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- whereas the cheque in question was made to be issued by the accused for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. The alleged borrowal of amount by the wife of the accused will not make the accused liable to pay the same in the cheque in question. The theorey put forward by the complainant that the consolidated cheque for Rs.4,00,000/- was issued by the accused only for discharge of the loan amount borrowed by him has not been proved. According to the complainant, the che