The main legal point established is the presumption of guilt under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act when a cheque is dishonored due to insufficient funds, and the legal requirements for making a demand for payment.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records pertaining to the Judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Dindigul in C.A. No.36 of 2013 dated 17.12.2015 in confirming the Judgment and sentence imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Palani in STC No. 1 of 2013 dated 18.04.2013 and set aside the same and acquit the revision petitioner.)

1. This criminal revision case is filed as against the concurrent findings on a complaint instituted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. The trial Court, namely, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Palani, found this petitioner guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in S.T.C. No.1 of 2013 and by order dated 18.04.2013, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and compensation of Rs.2 Lakhs in default, to undergo further period of simple imprisonment of One month. As against the conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred an appeal and the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Dindigul, by order dated 17.12.20215, in C.A.No.36 of 2013 confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has preferred the instant revision case.

3. The case of the respondent / complainant is that the petitioner and respondents are friends. The revision petitioner has borrowed a sum of Rs.2 Lakhs from the respondent/complainant on 07.10.2012 as a hand loan and issued a post dated cheque bearing No.584864, dated 19.10.2012 drawn on I.C.I.C.I. Bank, Palani Branch wherein the appellant is having his Savings Bank Account. Believing the words of the revision petitioner the cheque was presented for collection and the same was dishonoured and returned with an endorsement as 'insufficient funds' on 22.10.2012. Therefore, the respondent has issued a legal notice, dated 15.11.2012 for which the petitioner has sent reply, dated 02.12.2012 was issued with false allegations, but, the petitioner did not repay the amount due under the cheque. Therefore, the respondent/complainant, has preferred a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, after the statutory period. Both the Courts below have found the petitioner/ accused guilty and aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the instant revision case.

4. Heard Mr.N.Saravanan, learned Counsel for the petitioner / accused. There is no representation for the respondent / complainant.

5. Mr.N.Saravanan, learned Counsel for the petitioner / accused contended that the petitioner has not borrowed any loan at all, as alleged by the complainant. He further contended that the appellate Court has confirmed the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Palani, without considering the documents and facts involved in the case. He further contended that the complainant has issued notice twice which is in violation of the Act. Therefore, the learned Counsel further contended that a false case has been foisted against him and prays for interference.

6. This Court has paid it's anxious consideration to the submissions made by the petitioner's Counsel and also to the documents placed on record.

7. Perusal of record shows that the respondent herein / complainant, in support of his case, examined two witnesses as PW1 & PW2 and marked seven documents. The petitioner herein/accused has examined three witnesses as D.W.1 to D.W.3 and marked four documents. The revision petitioner/complainant has marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.3 to substantiate his case. On the other hand, the petitioner/accused has stated that he signed in Tamil after 2009. the cheque alleged to be given in the year 2012. he gave four unfilled but signed cheque to the complainant's father in the year 2004 and his father has filed dishonoured cheque case on the basis of one case and was compromised. This complainant used one of the cheque a