JUDGMENT :

1. The present Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment, dated 13.09.2007, passed in Crl.A.No.25 of 2006, wherein the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, N.T.R. Nagar, Hyderabad, confirmed the judgment, dated 27.02.2006, passed in C.C.No.1886 of 2005 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Kukatpally at Miyapur.

2. The facts of the case are as under:

3. The 2nd respondent/complainant filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the revision petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, stating that the revision petitioner/accused borrowed an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- from him on 26.08.1999 and executed a promissory note agreeing to repay the same within one week from the date of demand made by the 2nd respondent/complainant. On repeated demands made by the 2nd respondent/complainant, the revision petitioner/accused issued a cheque bearing No.164596, dated 05.07.2002 for Rs.1,81,400/.- drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, Ramachandrapuram towards repayment of the said debt and when the same was presented by the 2nd respondent/complainant in his bank i.e. Global Trust Bank, Chandanagar Branch, for realization, the same was returned with an endorsement ‘Account Closed’. Therefore, the 2nd respondent/complainant got issued a notice, which was not honoured by the revision petitioner/accused. As such, the 2nd respondent/complainant filed a complaint against the revision petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

4. In support of his case, the 2nd respondent/complainant examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.6, whereas the revision petitioner/accused was examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked Ex.D1 on his behalf.

5. The trial Court, after considering both oral and documentary evidence available on record, found guilt of the revision petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the 2nd respondent/complainant, within a period of one month from the date of judgment. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner/accused preferred Crl.A.No.25 of 2006 before the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, Hyderabad. Vide judgment, dated 13.09.2007, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court against the revision petitioner/accused.

6. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the record.

7. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/accused would submit that though the 2nd respondent/complainant (P.W.1) admitted in his cross-examination that he was an income tax assessee, he has not shown the alleged transaction amount in his Income Tax Returns during that period and the said aspect has not been considered by both the Courts below; that P.W.1 further admitted in his cross-examination that he has not issued any notice to the revision petitioner/accused demanding repayment of loan; that P.W.1 also admitted that he has withdrawn Rs.30,000/- by depositing the cheque of the revision petitioner/accused on 01.12.2000, which establishes that the 2nd respondent/complainant had misused the cheques for wrongful gain. It is further submitted that the revision petitioner/D.W.1 has admitted in his cross-examination that he had handed over one signed blank cheque and two unsigned blank cheques to the 2nd respondent/complainant as he promised to arrange a loan for him, which clearly proves the contention of the revision petitioner/accused that the 2nd respondent/complainant had misused the cheques by manipulating and fabricating the cheques. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the follow