O R D E R

This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against the Judgement passed in C.A.No.81 of 2017 on the file of the Additional Sessions, Magalir Neethi Mandram, (Fast Track Mahila Court), Erode District, confirming the judgement dated 29.08.2016 passed in S.T.C.No.213 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track)

Court No.II, Erode

2.The respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act alleging that he had given a loan of Rs.4,00,000/-(Rupees Four Lakhs only) to the accused/petitioner herein and towards the discharge of the said loan, the petitioner had issued a cheque for Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) dated 14.01.2012; that the cheque was presented for collection and was returned by the Bank for the reason ''Funds insufficient''; that he had issued a statutory notice to the correct address and the same was returned unserved with an endorsement ''not claimed''. The respondent examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5. The petitioner examined one witness on his side and marked five documents. The petitioner's defence during the trial was that the cheque was not issued in discharge of his liability, and it was issued only as a security.

3.After considering the evidence on record and hearing either side, the trial Court by the judgement and order dated 29.10.2016 in S.T.C.No.213 of 2012 convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and sentenced him to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to sufffer Simple Imprisonment for three months. The petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence before the Additional Sessions, Magalir Neethi Mandram, (Fast Track Mahila Court), Erode District in C.A.No.81 of 2017 and the same was dismissed and confirmed the judgement of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the accused has preferred the present Criminal Revision.

4. Heard Mr.I.C.Vasudevan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Mr.C.Ramkumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

5.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the Courts below erred in convicting the petitioner, without considering the material fact that there was no legally enforceable debt and that the cheque was given only as security. Learned Counsel further submit that in the complaint. The respondent stated that the cheque was issued for discharge of loan amount. Further, in the cross examination he admits that the cheque was issued only as security for repayment of the said amount. He further submit that the complainant/respondent did not establish the fact that he had sufficient means to advance the loan amount.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant would submit that the complainant has proved his case beyond reasonable doubt; that the petitioner has not rebutted the statutory presumption in the manner known to law. He further submits that the Courts below have rightly disbelieved the defence of the petitioner and convicted him for the offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act. The cheque was given only for discharge of the liability of the petitioner.

7. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it is necessary to reiterate the principle that while exercising Revisional Jurisdiction involving concurrent finding of the Courts below, this Court cannot act as at a second Appellate Court.

8. It is trite law that in a Revision challenging Appellate Court's judgement, confirming the judgement of trial Court, the Court can appreciate the evidence only to the limited extent of ascertaining if the finding is perverse, unreasonable or implausible.

9.In the case of hand, we find that the complainant has established the fact that the cheque was issued by the accused; that the cheque was dishonoured for the reason''Funds insufficient'' and that statutory notice was sent to the correct address. Since he has established the foundation