ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed seeking to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed in the judgment dated 19.09.2019 made in C.A.No.367 of 2018 on the file of the learned 2nd Additional District and Sessions Court, Erode, confirming the Judgement dated 03.11.2018 made in S.T.C. No.33 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.2, Erode, by allowing the Criminal Revision Petition. 2. The petitioner is the accused and the respondent is the complainant. 3. The respondent had filed the private complaint under Sections 200 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.2, Erode, and the same was taken on file in S.T.C. No.33 of 2016. The learned Magistrate after completing the formalities and trial, found guilt of the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- in default to undergo, three months simple imprisonment. Challenging the said Judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed appeal before the Sessions Judge, Erode, and the same was taken on file in C.A.No.367 of 2018 and made over to the 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode. The 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge who dealt with the appeal, after hearing the arguments and re-appreciating the evidence, dismissed the same confirming the Judgement of the trial Court. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has filed the present revision before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that during the relevant period of time, the petitioner was suffering with ailment of paralysis attack and he was in continuous treatment. Even after the treatment, he was not in a position to walk, read and write. When that being the situation, the petitioner could have not executed the cheque and signed the cheque as projected by the respondent. He would further submit that the petitioner never borrowed money from the respondent and never executed any cheque. Further, the respondent has not produced any document to show that he had financial capacity to lend a such a huge amount of Rs.4,20,000/- to the petitioner. He would further submit that any transaction for more than Rs.20,000/-, it should be done only through RTGS and not by cash and therefore, the alleged transaction of Rs.4,20,000/- cash, could not have taken place as projected by the respondent. He would further submit that actually, the petitioner used to borrow money from one Annachi @ Soundararajan @ Kennadi in between 2008 to 2010 and during that time, the petitioner had issued some signed unfilled cheques. At one point of time, the petitioner was unable to pay the exorbitant interest demanded by the said Annachi. Hence, he wanted to settle the amount to Annachi @ Soundararajan @ Kennadi and when they calculated the amount, it came to Rs.2,25,000/- and after negotiation, they finalized to Rs.2,00,000/-. Accordingly, the petitioner paid Rs.2,00,000/- to the said Annachi @ Soundararajan @ Kennadi and due to trust on him, he did not get back the discharged cheques from him. Thereafter, the said Annachi @ Soundararajan @ Kennadi has made use of the respondent and filed the false complaint against the petitioner. After this complaint, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the police through his wife and since they did not take any action, they lodged a complaint before Judicial Magistrate-I, Erode, and the same is also pending. In order to substantiate his defence, he also examined the Doctor who treated the petitioner as R.W.1 and the wife of the petitioner was examined as R.W.2 and the complaint lodged against the said Annachi @ Soundararajan @ Kennadi before the Police and Magistrate have marked as defence documents viz., Exs.D2, D3 and D6. Therefore, the petitioner has substantiated his defence. Further,