JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., seeking to call for the records in C.A.No.54 of 2014, dated 05.11.2014 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal confirming the Judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate [Fast Track Court], Tiruchengode, in S.T.C.No.294 of 2012 dated 26.06.2014 to undergo 6 months of simple imprisonment and to pay compensation a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- to the complainant for the offence U/s.138 of N.I. Act and to set aside the same.)

(This case has been heard through video conference)

1. The convicted accused is the revision petitioner herein.

2. The respondent herein/complainant has filed a private complainant under Section 200 of Cr.P.C for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in STC.No. 294 of 2012, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, (Magisterial Level), Tiruchengode, alleging that on 25.01.2005, the accused has borrowed a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- from the respondent herein/complainant and to discharge the liability the revision petitioner herein/accused had issued a cheque drawn on “The Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd, Erode Branch, cheque bearing No.8002624, dated 25.02.2005 for a sum of Rs.1,25,000/-, which was marked as Ex.P1, in favour of the respondent herein/complainant. Thereafter, the complainant presented the said cheque for encashment through the “Corporation Bank” Pallipalayam Branch, on 24.08.2005 and the same was dishonoured as “Insufficient Funds” in the account of the revision petitioner herein/accused. Thereafter, the respondent herein/complainant on 19.09.2005 has issued a statutory notice to the accused through his counsel and the said notice was returned to counsel with an endorsement of ‘Refused returned to sender’. Hence, the complaint.

3. During the course of the trial, on behalf of the respondent herein/complainant one Palanisamy was examined as PW1 and marked Exs.P1 to P4; on behalf of the defence/accused, one Selvaraj was examined as DW1 and marked Ex.D1.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused, before the Trial Court has contended that the accused has not borrowed any amount from the complainant at any point of time and the cheque was not issued by him for any legally enforceable debt as alleged and the signature in Ex.P1/cheques was not the signature of the accused and there is no legally recoverable debt and hence, the complaint is not maintainable.

5. After perusing the materials placed on record, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, (Magisterial Level), Tiruchengode, has convicted the revision petitioner herein/accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo six months simple imprisonment and to pay compensation of Rs.1,25,000/-. Aggrieved against the same, the revision petitioner herein/accused has preferred a Criminal Appeal No.54 of 2014, before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal and by an order date 19.07.2016, the learned Judge has dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate(FTC) Tiruchengode, in STC.No.294 of 2012. Hence, the present Criminal Revision Case has been preferred by the accused.

6. Heard both the learned counsels and perused the materials placed on record.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent herein/complainant would contend that the accused/revision petitioner herein had borrowed a loan amount of Rs.1,25,000/- from the complainant and for the repayment of the said loan the revision petitioner herein/accused had issued Ex.P1/cheuqe in favour of the complainant to discharge the legally enforceable pre-existing debt.

8. Whileso, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner herein/accused would contend that the signature in Ex.P1/cheque is not at all the signature of the accused and he has not borrowed any amount as alleged by the complainant and the cheque was not issued by him to