OF

CONVICTION DATED 23.02.2012 PASSED BY THE ADDL. C.J.

(JR.DN.) & JMFC, NANJANGUDU IN C.C.NO.1422/2009.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

2

ORDER

This Revision petition is filed challenging the order dated

20-02-2013, dismissing the Criminal Appeal No.53/2012 filed

before the I Additional Sessions Judge, Mysuru, and confirming

the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Civil

Judge & JMFC, Nanjangud, in CC No.1422/2009 dated

23-02-2012 wherein the revision petitioner who was the

accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('N.I Act' for

short) and was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,52,000/- and in

default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for

a period of six months and out of the fine amount, a sum of

Rs.1,50,000/- was ordered to be paid to the complainant as

compensation.

2.

The revision petitioner was the accused and the

respondent was the complainant before the trial Court. They

will be referred to as per their respective ranks before the trial

Court for convenience.

3.

The respondent lodged a complaint before the trial

court contending that the complainant and the accused are

3

known to each other. The accused approached the complainant

for financial assistance during the First week of June, 2009 to

the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- for the purpose of his legal necessity.

Accordingly, the complainant paid the amount. The accused

agreed to repay the same within 1½ months. Thereafter, when

the complainant demanded the accused to repay the amount,

the accused issued a cheque bearing No.232343 for a sum of

Rs.1,50,000/- drawn on Cauvery Kalpatharu Grameena Bank

and asked the complainant to encash the same by presenting

the same. Accordingly, the complainant presented the cheque

to Syndicate Bank, Nanjangud. The said cheque was returned

with an endorsement "funds in the accounts are insufficient".

In this regard, the complainant issued a legal notice on 11-09-

2009 calling upon the accused to pay loan amount. When the

said notice was served, the accused has not chosen to repay

the amount nor replied to the said notice. Hence, the

complainant lodged a complaint before the JMFC court for

taking action against the accused as per the N.I Act.

4.

Before the trial court, the complainant was

examined as PW.1 and got marked nine documents Exs.P-1 to

P-9. Thereafter the statement of the accused was recorded.

4

The accused/revision petitioner led defence evidence of himself

as DW1, but no documents were marked. After hearing the

arguments, learned JMFC convicted the accused for the offence

stated above which was challenged by the revision petitioner

before the learned Sessions Judge, Mysuru wherein the I

Additional Sessions Judge by order dated 20th February 2013,

in Criminal Appeal No.53/2012 dismissed the said appeal, by

confirming the Judgment of conviction which is now assailed in

this revision petition.

5.

Heard Sri M.Y.Sreenivasan, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri R.B.Anneppanavar, learned counsel for the

respondent.

6.

Learned

counsel

appearing

for

the

revision

petitioner - Sri M.Y.Sreenivasan submits that the Judgment

passed by both the Courts are erroneous and opposed to rule

of law and evidence. It is also argued that the said Judgment

of conviction is not sustainable and the courts have grossly

erred in appreciating the evidence. It is also contended that

the Courts have erred in appreciating the relationship between

the petitioner and the respondent. The transaction itself is a

false

story.

A

false

case

is

foisted

against

the

5

accused/petitioner by misusing the said cheque. The courts

have failed to consider the capacity and the source of income of

the complainant. The documents are fabricated. Therefore,

the learned counsel prayed to set aside the Judgment of the

first appellate Court as well as the Judgment of conviction

passed by the trial cou