JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the order passed in C.A.No.28 of 2013 by order, dated 08.04.2014 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, confirming the conviction and sentence passed in S.T.C.No. 467 of 2011, by order, dated 21.11.2013, by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Cuddalore.

1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner/accused, aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Cuddalore in S.T.C.No.467 of 2011, thereby, convicting the petitioner for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentencing to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation to the respondent/complainant within two months, in default to pay compensation to the respondent/complainant, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two months and the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, dated 08.04.2014 in Crl.A.No.28 of2013, thereby, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court.

2. This is a case arising out of a private complaint filed under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The case of the respondent/complainant is that on 27.05.2011, the petitioner/accused requested for a hand loan of Rs.5,00,000/- for his family requirements and the respondent/complainant had lent the amount on the same day out of friendship. In repayment thereof, the petitioner/accused issued cheque bearing No.519297, dated 27.05.2011, drawn on Bank of Baroda, Cuddalore branch, promising to pay the amount within four months from the date of borrowal. However, the petitioner/accused did not do so. Therefore, the complainant presented the said cheque with his banker on 28.05.2011 and cheque was returned dishonoured. Therefore, he issued a statutory notice on 02.06.2011 and on the receipt of which, the petitioner/accused neither issued any reply nor paid the amount, within the stipulated time and hence the committed the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and therefore, he filed the private complaint.

3. Upon recording the sworn statement of the respondent/complainant, the learned Judicial Magistrate took the case on file in S.T.C.No.467 of 2011 and issued summons to the petitioner/accused. Upon appearance and being furnished with the copies, the petitioner/accused denied the charge and stood trial.

4. The respondent/complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and one Illangovan, Bank Manager, Bank of Baroda, Cuddalore as P.W.2. On the side of the respondent/complainant, the cheque issued by the petitioner/accused was marked as Ex.P1; the return memo issued by the bankers of the petitioner/accused, for returning the cheque for non-sufficient funds, was marked as Ex.P2; the statutory notice issued by the complainant was marked as Ex.P3 and the acknowledgment card as Ex.P4. Upon being questioned under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure about the material evidence on record, the petitioner/accused denied the same as false. Thereafter, there was no oral or documentary evidence was let in on behalf of the defense and therefore, the Trial Court proceeded to hear both sides learned Counsel and by a judgment, dated 21.11.2013, the Trial Court found that from the cross-examination of the accused, it is seen that the petitioner/accused has admitted his signature in Ex.P1 cheque and it is his contention that the cheque was issued to one Pakkiri in a transaction between him and said Pakkiri and he never issued any cheque to the complainant. Therefore, the Trial Court concluded that once the accused admits his signature in the cheque, then the presumption in favour of the respondent/complainant under Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 arises and except for the cross-examination, the accused had not let in any positiv