ORDER

This Criminal Revision case has been filed as against the Judgment dated

08.07.2019 passed in C.A.No.116 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore, Vellore District, thereby confirming the Judgment dated 03.11.2017 passed in C.C.No.117 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Vellore, thereby convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.

2. The petitioner is an accused in the complaint lodged by the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. The case of the respondent is that on 10.09.2015, the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for his business purpose. He agreed to return the said amount with interest at the rate of Rs.2 per Rs.100/- i.e., 24% per annum. However, the petitioner failed to pay the amount. When the respondent approached the petitioner and demanded repayment, the petitioner issued a cheque. The said cheque was presented for collection and the same was returned for the reason 'stop the payment'. After causing statutory notice, the respondent filed a complaint.

3. On the side of the respondent, he examined P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P5. On the side of the petitioner, he examined D.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Exs.D1 to D3.

4. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court found the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and he was sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment and also awarded compensation with interest to the cheque amount at the rate of 6% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed and the order of the Trial Court was confirmed. Hence, this revision.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner never borrowed any loan as alleged by the respondent. Immediately, after receipt of the statutory notice, the petitioner caused reply notice dated 10.06.2016 and the same was duly received by the respondent on 17.06.2016. However, the respondent wantonly suppressing the reply notice issued by the petitioner before the Trial Court. In the reply notice, the petitioner categorically denied the borrowal of the cheque amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and he questioned about the source of income. He further had a defence that the respondent's mother was doing money lending business, in which, the alleged cheque was handed over to other persons, who borrowed money from her. The said cheque was misused by the respondent and initiated proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. He further submitted that in the complaint and the legal notice, he stated that immediately after borrowing the loan, the petitioner agreed to return the loan amount with interest. However, he did not repay the same and on his demand, the petitioner issued a cheque in favour of the respondent. In his cross examination, he deposed that on the date of borrowal of Rs.1,00,000/-, the petitioner issued the alleged cheque. Since, the petitioner issued the cheque, the respondent did not insist for any promissory note. He also categorically admitted that the cheque was originally issued for a sum of Rs.10,000/-, it was altered for a sum of Rs.1,10,000/-. Therefore, there is absolutely no legally enforceable debt in favour of the respondent and no consideration was passed for issuance of cheque. Therefore, the petitioner rightly issued stop payment to the banker to 'stop the payment'. Though he issued the cheque, for returning the cheque, the petitioner's intention was clear that he never issued cheque for any legally enforceable debt. However, both the Courts below convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the petitioner never denied the issuance of the cheque and the signature found in the cheque. Though the petitioner ha