JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to set aside the Judgment dated 02.04.2019 passed by III Additional District and Sessions Court, Kallakurichi in C.A.No.7 of 2018 confirming the judgment dated 22.01.2018 passed in C.C.No.214 of 2013 by the III Fast Track Court Magistrate, Kallakurichi and to acquit the petitioner.)

1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the concurrent orders of conviction for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. The case of the complainant is that on 26.05.2006, the petitioner/accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.3,20,000/- and in repayment thereof, issued the subject matter cheque and the same was presented, which was dishonored with an endorsement ''funds insufficient'' and thereafter, issuing statutory notice, the complaint is filed.

3. After recording the sworn statement of the complainant, the case was taken on file and summons was issued to the petitioner/accused. The petitioner/accused upon appearance denied the allegations and stood trial. The complainant was examined as P.W.1 and Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-6 were marked. Upon being questioned about the material evidence on record and the incriminating circumstances under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused denied the same as false and denied that he issued the cheque. Thereafter, no evidence was let in on behalf of the defence. Therefore, the Trial Court proceeded to hear the learned counsel on either side and by a judgment dated 22.01.2018 found that the accused had cross examined the complainant, but could not elicit any answer favourable to him, no complaint was lodged against the complainant for misusing the cheque, which was alleged to be given in favour of one Murugadoss and neither the said Murugadoss was called in evidence nor he adduced any further evidence. Therefore, except for few suggestions in the cross examination, which the complainant has withstood, there is no any attempt to the rebut the presumption and therefore, held the accused as guilty of the offence.

4. The Appellate Court after independently reappraising the evidence, held that once the appellant admits the issue of cheque and the signature, there is a presumption in favour of the complainant and the accused having been silent after the receipt of the statutory notice and also having not let in positive evidence to prove his defence and when the questions put to the complainant by the defence have been denied by the complainant, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court.

5. Before this Court in this revision, a conditional order was imposed. Thereafter, there was no representation about the compliance of the conditional order. There was no representation on behalf of the petitioner/accused for several occasions and therefore, this Court had appointed a legal aid counsel to represent the petitioner. The legal aid counsel taking this Court to the cross examination of the complainant would submit that the accused had clearly suggested that the cheque was issued in favour of one Murugadoss and the answers of the complainant that he did not know the native place of the accused, the residence of the accused, the designation of the accused in the Electricity Board, etc., would clearly prove that the defence version that the cheque was given only to one Murugadoss and the cheque is being misused in the name of the complainant and therefore, would pray that this Court should accept the defence of the accused.

6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel on either side and perused the material records of the case.

7. I am unable to accept the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Except for cross examining the accused by suggesting that the cheque was given to one Murugadoss, not even further questions were asked to pursue the defence and specifically no further evidence was let in when the complainant denied the suggestions.

8.