JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and set aside the judgment passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Trichy, dated 21.02.2017, in C.A.No.3 of 2016, by confirming the judgment dated 28.07.2015, in C.C.No.175 of 2013, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Musiri, and acquit the petitioner.)

1. The present Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the concurrent findings made in C.C.No.175 of 2013, dated 28.07.2015, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Musiri, and in C.A.No.3 of 2016, dated 21.02.2017, on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Trichirappalli.

2. The petitioner is an accused in C.C.No.175 of 2013, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Musiri. The respondent filed the said case by way of private complaint alleging that the petitioner has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial Court, by judgment dated 28.07.2015, found the accused guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a compensation of Rs.1,10,500/-.

3. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner filed an appeal in C.A.No.3 of 2016. By judgment dated 21.02.2017, the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Trichirappali, dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court.

4. Aggrieved over the same, the revision petitioner is before this Court with this Criminal Revision Case.

5. The case of the respondent is as follows:-

Both the respondent and the petitioner are close friends. On 10.08.2013 the petitioner received a hand loan of Rs.8,00,000/- from the respondent. While at the time of receiving the said loan, after made assurance as the same would be repaid within a period of one month, the petitioner issued a cheque [Ex.P.1] drawn on State Bank of India, Kattuputhur Branch. On 01.10.2013 when the said cheque was presented for collection in the same Bank, the same was dishonoured by the Bank as an endorsement “funds insufficient” [Ex.P.2]. Thereafter, a legal notice [Ex.P.3] required under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, was issued by the respondent to the petitioner on 30.10.2013. Having received the same under acknowledgement [Ex.P.4], the accused did not send any reply in respect of allegation levelled against him. Thereafter, the respondent filed the said private complaint.

6. In order to prove his case, on the side of the respondent/complainant, the complainant himself was examined as P.W.1 and four documents were exhibited as Exs.P.1 to P.4.

(i) Ex.P.1 is the disputed cheque.

(ii) Ex.P.2 is the return memo issued by the State Bank of India, Kattuputhur Branch.

(iii) Ex.P.3 is the legal notice issued by the complainant's Advocate.

(iv) Ex.P.4 is the acknowledgment card, dated 11.12.2013.

7. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused, he denied the same as false. On the other hand, the revision petitioner/accused himself was examined as D.W.1 and he states that before the occurrence, both himself and the complainant are having loan transactions, wherein he paid Rs.2,10,000/- to the complainant, for redeeming the gold jewels pledged by him. Thereafter, the complainant has also received Rs.95,000/- from the accused by pledging gold jewels, viz., Rs.12,000/- as cost for one sovereign of gold and thereafter, he did not redeem the same. In this regard, a dispute arose and as a result of which, he lodged a complaint before the Kattuputhur Police Station, wherein, during enquiry, the Police obtained his signature in two blank cheques and also in Rs.20/- Non-Judicial Stamp Paper. It is the further evidence given by the revision petitioner that while at the time of putting his signature in the stamp paper, the Police Officers dictated some ter