O R D E R

Revision Petitioner-accused has filed this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C being aggrieved by the concurrent findings with regard to his conviction and sentence passed in CC No.32217/2009 dated 22.10.2013 by the 16th ACMM, Bengaluru and confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.586/2013 dated 6.3.2014 by the Fast Track Court No.9, Bengaluru City.

2. Parties to this revision are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court for the purpose of convenience.

3. The brief and relevant facts as set out in complaint are as under:

That, accused borrowed Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant on 15.6.2009 to meet his legal necessity as they were known to each other. The said loan was for a period of 10 days and was to be repaid on or before 24.6.2009. He borrowed the said loan amount towards his newly established pharmaceutical firm’s business. On the day of loan itself, accused issued a cheque bearing No.093670 dated 24.6.2009 for Rs.5,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Kanakapura Road Branch, Bengaluru. When the said cheque was presented for encashment, it was returned unpaid with an endorsement `payment stopped by the drawer’ as per the memo dated 17.6.2009. Therefore, complainant issued statutory notice through his Advocate on 14.7.2009 which was returned on 29.7.2009 with the words `enquiry’. Thereafter, as accused has committed an offence under Sec.138 of NI Act, he filed a complaint before the trial Magistrate.

4. On filing of the complaint, the trial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence, recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and issued process against the accused. Pursuant to the summons, accused appeared before the trial Magistrate and was enlarged on bail.

5. The trial Magistrate recorded the substance of accusation under Sec.138 of NI Act and accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove the guilt of the accused, complainant examined himself as PW.1 and examined two witnesses as PWs. 2 and 3, got marked ex.P1 to P9 and closed his evidence. Thereafter, accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.PC so as to enable her to answer the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the complainant. She denied her complexity in the crime and lead defence evidence by entering witness box as DW.1. Got marked Ex.D1 to D4 in support of her defence.

7. The learned trial Magistrate, after closure of evidence of both sides, passed judgment of conviction and sentence vide Judgment dated 22.10.2013 sentencing the accused to pay fine of Rs.5,25,000/- and after realizing of the fine amount, it is ordered to pay compensation to the complainant to the extent of Rs..5,20,000/- and Rs.5,000/ is ordered to be paid as fine amount to the Government with default sentence.

8. Being aggrieved by the same, accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.586/2013 before the Fast Track Court No.9, Bengaluru City. The learned Presiding Officer of Fast Track Court-9 vide judgment 6.3.2014 has dismissed the said appeal confirming the judgment of the trial Magistrate.

9. These judgments having concurrent findings of the court below have been challenged by the accused revision petitioner on the following grounds:

10. There is no compliance of the mandatory requirement of law stipulated under Section 138 of NI Act as no notice of demand was served on the accused. The learned trial Court has grossly erred in not noticing the same. Ex.D1 to D4 so produced before the Court do suggest that residence of accused is No.29 but wrongly it was sent to Door No.26 and the accused was not the resident of Door No.26. But, even then it is stated that the learned trial Court has held that there is service of notice on the accused.

11. The findings of the trial court with regard to not lodging police complaint after instructions to stop payment so as to hold that the accused has committed the offence under Sec.138 of NI Act is not proper. She has clearly stated that she has not lodged the complaint. Despite th