This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned

counsel for the petitioner.

2.

The case of the respondent before the Trial Court is

that this petitioner was one of the subscriber of the chit run by

the respondent-complainant at their R.T. Nagar branch and he

had subscribed to the Chit Group No. RFL-28, TKT No.41-A for a

chit value of Rs.5,00,000/- payable at the rate of Rs.10,000/-

per month for a period of 50 months and the petitioner-accused

had also signed the chit agreement at the time of joining the

chit. The petitioner was declared as prize bidder in the chit

auction held on 15.07.2015 and he had received the amount.

Inspite of repeated request and demand, he has not repaid the

amount and two persons have also stood as guaranters and on

persistent demand, he had issued subject matter cheque for

Rs.2,23,000/- and when the said cheque was presented for

payment, the same returned with an endorsement 8funds

3

insufficient9. The respondent-complainant got issued legal notice

and he did not give any reply and complaint was filed and

thereafter, cognizance was taken and the petitioner was secured

before the Trial Court.

3.

The complainant, in order to prove his case,

examined a witness as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as

Exs.P1 to P12. On the other hand, the petitioner-accused

herein did not choose to lead any defence evidence and only

cross-examined P.W.1.

4.

The Trial Court, after considering both oral and

documentary evidence placed on record, convicted the petitioner

for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act

(the 8N.I. Act9 for short) and directed to pay fine of Rs.2,23,200/-

and in default to pay the fine amount, ordered to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of another two months, apart from

simle imprisonment for a period of a six months. Hence, an

appeal

was

filed

before

the

Appellate

Court

in

Crl.A.No.648/2019. The Appellate Court also, on re-appreciation

of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record,

4

dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present revision is filed before

this Court.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly

contend that writings available on the cheque does not belong to

the petitioner and both the Courts have not appreciated the said

fact. It is the case of the petitioner that, he has repaid all the

installment and further the respondent has also admitted

whatever the payment made by the petitioner and the same is

shown in the statement of chit account at Ex.P12. He would

further contend that the amount of Rs.2,23,200/- was covered,

however the cheque was not shown in the statement of chit

account. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.

6.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and also on perusal of the material on record, the fact that this

petitioner was the subscriber of the chit is not in dispute and the

documents Exs.P2 and P3, chit agreements and Ex.P12-

statement of chit account are also produced before the Court. It

is the contention of the petitioner that no legal notice was served

on him but, the respondent-complainant has relied upon the

documents at Exs.P9 to P11 i.e., copy of legal notice, postal

5

receipt and the postal acknowledgement and the petitioner also

not disputes the address mentioned in the complaint. However,

the only contention is that, someone has signed the same.

When such being the case, under Section 27 of the General

Clauses Act, it is deemed to be served on the petitioner. Hence,

the first contention of the petitioner no legal notice was served

on him cannot be accepted.

7.

Regarding the other contention that hand writing

available on the cheque not belongs to the petitioner, once, the

petitioner has given the cheque authorizing the respondent-

complainant to fill up the same with the signature, the

contention that hand writing on the cheque does not belong to

him cannot be accepted. When the cheque is given in faovur of

the respondent-complainant and the petitioner is the subscri