ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case in Crl.R.C.No.767 of 2014 is filed by the petitioner/accused, aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Yanam, dated 15.04.2011 in S.T.R.No.712 of 2008, thereby, convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentencing to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- and in default to pay the compensation, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two months and the judgment of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge at Puducherry, dated 07.06.2014 in Crl.A.No.31 of 2011, thereby, confirming the conviction and sentence of the Trial Court.

2. This is a case arising by way of a private complaint under Section

200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, whereby, the respondent/complainant filed a private complaint complaining of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act stating that the petitioner/accused borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and executed a promissory note in favour of the complainant. In repayment of the said amount, issued a cheque bearing No.331547, dated 20.05.2008, drawn on Vijaya Bank, Kakinada and when the same was presented for collection by the complainant with his bankers, namely State Bank of India, Yanam, which was returned dishonoured with an endorsement “insufficient funds” along with memo of dishonour, dated 06.09.2008. The complainant, therefore, issued a statutory notice on 29.09.2018 calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount within the period of 15 days. However, the petitioner/accused did not pay the amount, but, issued a reply, dated 15.10.2008, for which a rejoinder was also issued on 10.11.2008 and therefore, since the petitioner/accused had committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the private complaint was filed.

3. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Yanam recorded the sworn statement of the complainant on 12.11.2018 and thereafter, took cognizance of the case in S.T.R.No.712 of 2008 and issued summons to the accused. Upon appearance of the accused, copies were furnished to him in compliance of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and upon questioning, he denied the offence and stood trial. Thereafter, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and examined one Palada Veera Venkata Satya Krishna, the Bank Manager of State Bank of India, Yanam as P.W.2 and examined one Dantuluri Vinod Kumar Raju, the scribe of the promissory note as P.W.3. On behalf of the complainant, the promissory note, executed by the petitioner/accused is marked as Ex.P-1; the cheque, issued by the accused, was marked as Ex.P-2; the pay-in slip of the complainant bank was marked as Ex.P-3; the memo of dishonour of the banker of the accused was marked as Ex.P-4; the forwarding memo of the State Bank of India, Kakinada was marked as Ex.P-5; the memo issued by the complainant bank, namely State Bank of India, Yanam was marked as Ex.P-6; the office copy of the legal notice, issued by the complainant was marked as Ex.P-7 and the acknowledgement card as Ex.P-8; the reply notice issued by the accused was marked as Ex.P-9 and the rejoinder notice issued by the complainant is marked as Ex.P-10.

4. Thereafter, upon being questioned about the adverse evidence and circumstances on record, as per Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied the same. Thereafter, the accused examined himself as D.W.1 and two of his employees, namely Pithani Sathi Babu as D.W.2 and one Dharmaraju Shankar as D.W.3. On behalf of the accused, note book issued by Sri Venkateswara Agency was marked as Ex.D-1 and the photograph showing the shop Venkateswara Agency was marked as Ex.D-2. Thereafter, the Trial Court proceeded to hear the learned Counsel on either sides and by a judgment, dated 15.04.2011 found that the first defence of the accus