O R D E R

The petitioner herein is the accused and the respondent herein is the complainant. On a complaint given by the complainant against the petitioner before the Trial Court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the same was taken on file and the accused was found guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and accordingly he was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam, which ended in dismissal, against which the present Criminal Revision Case has been filed.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a car driver by profession; that for the jewel loan borrowed by one Raghunathan (D.W.2) the petitioner issued cheques to the respondent as security; that the respondent misused those cheques given for security purpose. It is submitted that Ex.P1-Cheque was not issued for any legally enforceable debt or liability, but it was purely issued for security purpose for the jewel loan availed by D.W.2. It is also submitted that the Promissory Note produced by the complainant at the last stage of the trial itself shows that the same is a created one. It is further submitted that both the Courts below failed to look into the impact of Ex.D5 which was the notice issued by the respondent on 24.02.2020 to the petitioner regarding the jewel loan received by D.W.2.

3.The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the Trial Court has correctly considered the materials and evidence and has passed the impugned judgment and the findings of the Trial Court have been rightly confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court and hence the judgments of the Courts below do not require any interference in the hands of this Court.

4.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record carefully and meticulously.

5.The main point argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that for the jewel loan borrowed by one Raghunathan (D.W.2) the petitioner issued cheques to the respondent as security and the respondent has misused those cheques given for security purpose. It is his further submission that Ex.P1-Cheque was not issued for any legally enforceable debt. When D.W.2-Raghunathan was cross-examined on the side of the complainant, a question was put to him as to whether he knew about the promissory note said to have been given by the accused to the complainant on receiving a sum of Rs.80,000/- from the complainant, for which he replied that he did not know. On an another question as to whether he knew about the accused handing over the cheque on 30.03.2010 amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- towards principal and interest, drawn on Indian Overseas Bank to the complainant, he deposed that he did not know. Ex.P1-Cheque is an Indian Bank cheque. The statement that Indian Overseas Bank cheque was issued to the complainant, has been falsified on a perusal of Ex.P1, which cheque is an Indian Bank cheque. Further, the accused had failed to explain the circumstances prevailing at that time, for handing over the cheque to the complainant. The accused had not denied that he issued the cheque for Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant. Further, on the face of Ex.D1-Reply notice to the Advocate's notice issued by the complainant, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the contention of the accused that he issued the cheque for security purpose, is not correct. In these circumstances, the Trial Court has correctly held that the complainant has proved his case beyond any doubt.

6.The Lower Appellate Court has observed that P.W.1-Complainant is the scribe of Ex.P6-Promissory Note and his deposition during cross- examination was sufficient to prove the fact of execution as well as the