ORDER

Heard learned counsel Sri Manjegowda, appearing on behalf of Sri Chandrashekara K.A., learned counsel for the revision petitioner. No representation on behalf of the respondent.

2. Present revision petition is filed by the accused challenging the order of conviction dated 26th August, 2013 passed in C.C.No.3697/2011 by the learned XIII A.C.M.M., Bengaluru, whereby the first Appellate Court confirmed the said order in Criminal Appeal No.487/2013 dated 1st October, 2014 by the learned Judge of Fast Track Court – XIV, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under:

A complaint came to be filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C., by the respondent herein against the revision petitioner stating that he was acquainted with the revision petitioner and they were fast friends. In the friendship, the revision petitioner took a hand loan in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with a promise to repay the same within a short period and despite repeated demands, he did not repay the amount and finally issued a cheque bearing No.474700 dated 30.06.2010 in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- drawn on Federal Bank Ltd., Rajajinagar Branch, Bengaluru, which on presentation came to be dishonored with an endorsement that “Account Closed”.

4. A legal notice came to be issued by the complainant and there was no compliance to the callings of notice nor there were any reply. Therefore, complainant was constrained to file a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

5. Presence of the accused was secured and plea was recorded. The accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, the trial was held.

6. In order to prove the complaint averments, the complainant got himself examined as P.W.1 and relied on eight documentary evidence which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to P.8, comprising of dishonored cheque, Bank endorsement, copy of the legal notice issued to the accused, RPAD receipt, UCP receipt, returned RPAD cover, returned cover opened in Court and complaint. As against the evidence placed on by the complainant, accused got examined himself as D.W.1 and he did not choose to place any documentary evidence on record.

7. Learned Trial Judge recorded statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and after hearing the arguments on both sides, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and imposed fine of Rs.1,05,000/-. Out of the said amount, Rs.1,00,000 was ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant and balance of Rs.5000/- as fine to the State.

8. Being aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner filed appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.487/2013.

9. Learned First Appellate Judge secured the records and after hearing the parties, by judgment dated 1st October 2014, dismissed the appeal by confirming the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court.

10. Being aggrieved by the same, present revision petitioner is before this Court.

11. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contended that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the case of the revision petitioner in proper perspective, especially when the cheque has been dishonored with an endorsement ‘Account Closed’ and therefore, there was a clear case made out by the accused that the cheque that has been issued by the accused in the friendship which has been misused by the complainant and wrongly convicted the accused and sought for allowing the revision petition.

12. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent.

13. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the revision petitioner, this Court perused the material on record. On perusal of the material on record it is crystal clear that the cheque issued by the revision petitioner and the signa