The main legal point established is that the drawer of a cheque cannot take advantage of their own fault and must comply with the legal requirements under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the conviction imposed in the judgment dated 12.04.2019 made in C.A.No.77 of 2018 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore modifying the judgmet dated 01.02.2018 made in C.C.C.no.148 of 2016 on the fie of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court Level-II, Coimbatore by allowing this Criminal Revision Petition.)

1. This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court Level-II, Coimbatore and confirmed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore. As far as the sentence is concerned, the trial Court imposed one year SI and compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% payable to the complainant. The lower appellate Court modified the sentence from one year SI to three months SI and confirmed the order of compensation passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by that, the present Criminal Revision Case has been filed.

2. The brief facts of the case leading to the revision petition is that, the revision petitioner/accused for his urgent family needs and business purpose, received a loan of Rs.1,20,000/- from the respondent/complainant during the month of December 2013. He executed a pro-note on 09.12.2013 promising to repay the same within a year. Before expiry of the one year period, the accused gave two cheques each for Rs.60,000/-, dated 10.12.2014 and 21.12.2014 respectively bearing Nos. 152588 and 152589 drawn on Canara Bank, Kannampalayam Branch. When those cheques were presented for collection through the complainant''s bank viz., City Union Bank, Villankurichi Branch, the same were returned with a memo “funds insufficient”. Hence, after causing statutory notice dated 06.02.2015 calling upon the accused to pay the amount, the private complaint has been filed. The trial Court has taken cognizance of the complaint in C.C.No.148 of 2016.

3. To prove the complaint, the complainant himself was examined as PW-1 and he has marked 6 exhibits. The accused has not chosen to let in any evidence. In fact, the trial Court has recorded that even after affording opportunity, the accused has not even cross examined the complainant in full. No defence was put forth by the accused to rebut the presumption by preponderance of probability except denied the incriminating evidence put forth to him under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the trial Court held that the accused/revision petitioner guilty of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced him as stated above.

4. On appeal, the lower appellate Court in Crl.A.No. 77 of 2018 vide order dated 12.04.2019 re-appreciating the evidence and the grounds of appeal that, he was not given adequate opportunity to cross examine the complainant and further, the order directing to pay compensation with 6% interest is beyond the power vested with the Judicial Magistrate under the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881. The lower appellate Court, after examining the records held that, the trial Court has given adequate opportunity on either side to let in evidence, but the accused right from the inception availed the opportunity. Though statutory notice was received by the accused, he has not chosen to reply the same. Inspite of adjournments affording opportunity to cross examine PW-1, he partly cross examined the witness and subsequently, did not cross examine the witness, though the witness was present. For that reason, confirmed the conviction, however, modified the period of imprisonment from one year SI to 3 months SI, but had not interfered with the order regarding payment of compensation with interest at the rate of 6%.

5. The present revision case is filed on the ground that even if the complainant has not been fully cross examined, Exs.P1 to P6 relied on by the complainant, does not prove the fundamental fact