ORDER :

This criminal revision case has been 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 Principal District Munsif-cum- Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi, found this petitioner guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in S.T.C No.454 of 2005 and by order, dated 24.11.2011, convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for One year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo imprisonment for Two months for the offence he was stood charged. As against the conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred an appeal and the learned Fast Track Mahila Judge, Sivaganga, by order dated 13.07.2016, in C.A.No.53 of 2011, 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 wife of the petitioner/accused borrowed a sum of Rs.2,60,000/-and in discharge of the debt had issued a cheque for Rs.3 Lakhs, dated 24.01.2005. The cheque was drawn on ICICI Bank Ltd., Karaikudi. The complainant had presented the cheque through his Bank ICICI Bank Ltd., Karaikudi and the same was returned with an endorsement 'insufficient funds'. Therefore, the complainant, after issuing a notice calling upon the petitioner/accused to make the payment as required under Clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, filed the complaint, 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.C. Jeyaprakash, learned Counsel for the petitioner/ accused. There is no representation for the respondent / complainant.

5. Mr.C. Jeyaprakash, learned Counsel for the petitioner/accused contended that the conviction and sentence of the Courts below are against law and failed to assign valid and proper reasons while convicting the petitioner herein. He further contended that the Courts below failed to consider that the statutory notice as contemplated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, was not issued to the petitioner/accused. He further contended that the Courts below failed to consider that the complainant had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. He further contended that the Courts below had erred in convicting the petitioner/accused only based upon presumptions and assumptions which is highly illegal and therefore, it required interference of this Court. Hence, he prays for allowing this Criminal Revision case.

6. This case has been filed by the petitioner/accused to set aside the conviction and sentence passed in C.A. No.53 of 2011 on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Sivagangai, dated 13.07.2016 in confirming the Judgment made in STC No.454 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Karaikudi, dated 24.11.2011.

7. The cheque was belonged to the petitioner/accused and issuance of cheque was also not denied by the petitioner/accused, even in his notice Ex.D.1. The complainant/respondent herein had issued notice to the petitioner/accused's counsel. The ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is very much essential.

8. The relevant portion of the Judgment reported in AIR 2000 SC, 954, Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd, is extracted hereunder:

“(i). a person must have drawn a cheque on an account maintained by him in the bank for payment of a certain amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge of any debt or other liability;

(ii). That cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier;

(iii) that cheque is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of the account is insuffici