ORDER :

(The cases have been heard through video conference)

For the sake of convenience, the petitioner and the respondent will be referred to as accused and complainant respectively.

2. It is a case of the complainant that the accused had approached her on 15.01.2006 and borrowed a sum of Rs.2,85,000/- from her as hand loan for emergency purpose and agreed to repay the same with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. In order to discharge his liability, the accused had executed a Promissory Note, but the accused neither paid any amount towards interest nor paid the principal. When the complainant approached the accused and made a demand to repay the said amount with interest, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.663515 dated 14.09.2007 for a sum of Rs.3,70,500/- (Ex.P2), drawn on Karur Vysya Bank, Main Branch in favour of the complainant and he assured her that the cheque would be honoured on presentation. The complainant believing his words, presented the cheque through her banker viz. Indian Overseas Bank, Namakkal on 24.09.2007, but the said cheque was returned by the banker of the accused with an endorsement “Account Closed” vide bank return memo dated 25.09.2007 (Ex.P3) and the same was intimated to the complainant through her banker on 26.09.2007 (Ex.P4). Therefore, the complainant issued a statutory demand notice dated 05.01.2007 by registered post (Ex.P5) but the accused even after getting the intimation from the postal department, refused to receive the legal notice sent by the complainant and the said notice (Ex.P6) was returned to her as unclaimed on 05.10.2007. The accused despite receiving the intimation from the postal department, refused to receive the same and the accused knowing well that his bank account has been closed had issued a cheque to the complainant with an intention to cheat her. The complainant has also filed a suit and the plaint dated 19.01.2009 has been marked as Ex.P1. Ex.P7 to Ex.P17 are the Income tax statements and Tax Return Forms to prove that the complainant has the capacity to lend the said hand loan to the accused. Therefore, the complainant initiated prosecution and the same was taken on file in S.T.C.No.348 of 2009 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Namakkal, for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity the NI Act) against the accused.

3. On appearance, the accused was questioned under Section 251 Cr.P.C. and he denied the accusation.

4. The complainant examined herself as P.W.1. and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P19.

5. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same and stated that he neither borrowed any amount from the complainant nor executed any promissory note in favour of the complainant and the cheque issued to the complainant is not his cheque and the signature in the cheque was also denied and he has stated that he was not aware as to how the cheque went to the hands of the complainant even after closing the account. On the side of the defence, the accused examined three witnesses viz. DW1 to DW3 and marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D3 to defend his case.

6. After considering the evidence on record and hearing either side, the trial Court, by judgment and order dated 30.06.2010 in S.T.C.No.348 of 2009 had found the accused guilty and convicted him u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. Against the said conviction and sentence, the accused had filed an appeal in C.A.No.73 of 2010 and the learned Additional District Judge, Namakkal by judgment and order dated 20.12.2013 finding that the accused is guilty for the offence u/s.138 of N.I. Act, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the findings of the Courts below, the accused has preferred the present Criminal Revision under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C.

7. Heard Mr. A. Thiyagarajan, learned counsel appeari