This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the order passed by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore dated 08.09.2016, in Crl. Appeal No. 52 of 2016 by which, the judgement and conviction made by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level-II, Coimbatore made in C.C.No.9 of 2012 dated 22.03.2016 has been confirmed.

2. The facts of the case are as follows :

The complainant/respondent hereinafter referred to as, 'the complainant' is a firm called M/s. Sree Ranganathar Spinners represented by its Power Holder one Mr.D.Pradeep and the appellant/accused is one Mr.G.Udyakumar, are known to each other. Therefore, in that strength, according to the complainant, the accused approached the complainant to borrow a sum of Rs.3 lakhs, accordingly, on 25.07.2011 a loan of Rs.3 Lakhs was paid by the complainant to the accused and on the said date, the accused executed a mortgage deed. According to the terms of the mortgage deed, in lieu of the payment of Rs.3 Lakhs loan paid to the accused by the complainant, the accused has to pay monthly interest periodically at the rate of 18% per annum i.e., 1.50%per month and shall repay the loan amount of Rs.3 Lakhs to the complainant, within the maximum period of three years. It was the further condition in the mortgage deed that, if any default in payment of the interest, it is open to the complainant to make the demand of the entire amount from the accused.

3. Accordingly, since the accused did not pay the interest, as agreed upon, periodically, the complainant demanded to repay the entire amount of Rs.3 Lakhs with interest and in order to repay the said amount of Rs.3 Lakhs, the accused issued a cheque bearing No. 019511, dated 09.01.2012, for Rs.3 Lakhs drawn on HDFC Bank Ltd., Gandhipuram Branch, Coimbatore in the capacity as a sole proprietor of M/s. Geekay Tex Associates and had instructed the complainant to present the cheque.

4. Accordingly, the complainant presented the cheque on 09.01.2012 at his bank namely, the Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Ramanathapuram Branch, Coimbatore from whom, the complainant received a return memo on 10.01.2012, stating that the accused bank has returned the cheque as ‘Funds Insufficient’. Subsequently, the complainant had issued a statutory notice under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act hereinafter referred to as, ‘N.I. Act’ on 04.02.2012. Though the said statutory notice was received by the accused on 11.02.2012, he did not issue any reply nor has come forward to repay the said amount of Rs.3 Lakhs covered under the said cheque. Therefore, the complainant preferred a complaint on 23.03.2012 before the Trial Court for the alleged offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The said complaint was taken on file in C.C. No. 9 of 2012, before the Trial Court.

5. Before the Trial Court, on the side of the complainant P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P9 were marked. On the side of the accused, D.W.1 was examined, Document D1 alone was marked. After completion of trial, taking into account the strength of the evidence advanced by both sides, the Trial Court by judgement dated 22.03.2016 had come to a conclusion that the accused had been guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and accordingly, the Trial Court convicted the accused for a simple imprisonment for 10 months and also imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default he shall undergo 2 months imprisonment.

6. As against the said judgement and the conviction dated 22.03.2016 made by the Trial Court, the accused preferred appeal in Crl.Appl.No.52 of 2016 and the same was heard and decided by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, vide judgement dated 08.09.2016 wherein, the First Appellate Court also, after having taken into account every plea raised by the accused in the said appeal, has ultimately, come to a conclusion that the judgement and conviction made by the Trial Court was justifiable an