O R D E R

This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against the Judgement passed in C.A.No.7 of 2017 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, confirming the judgement dated 08.02.2017 passed in S.T.C.No.2595 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Krishnagiri.

2.The respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, alleging that he had given a loan of Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten Lakhs only) without getting any document to the accused/petitioner herein and towards the discharge of the said loan, the petitioner had issued a cheque for Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten Lakhs only) dated 08.11.2013; that the cheque was presented for collection and was returned by the Bank for the reason ''Funds insufficient''; then he had issued a statutory notice on 27.11.2013 to the correct address and the same was served on 28.11.2013. The respondent examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5. The petitioner examined himself as D.W.1 and marked two documents.

3.After considering the evidence on record and hearing either side, the trial Court by the judgement dated 08.02.2016 in S.T.C.No.2595 of 2013 convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and sentenced him to undergo six months S.I and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-,(Rupees Five thousand only) in default to suffer S.I for one month. The petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, in C.A.No.7 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.K.Subramaniam, for Mr.Thiruvenkadam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner.

5.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the Courts below erred in convicting the petitioner, without considering the material fact that there was no legally enforceable debt. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner examined himself as D.W.1 and deposed to the effect that the respondent was running a Finance Company; that he had obtained a loan of Rs.10,000/- only; that he had introduced the respondent to four or five persons who obtained a loan from the respondent that the respondent obtained the cheque for Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakshs only) as security to ensure the due repayment of the loan taken by the petitioner and his friends from the respondent; that the petitioner and the respondent had repaid the loan amount and the respondent did not return the cheque. He further submitted 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 and 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 and he would submit that the cheque was given only to discharge 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 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 the statutory notice was sent to t