- (1.) The Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode, in C.A.No. 66 of 2015 dated 17.12.2015 confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2 (Fast Track Court), Erode in S.T.C.No. 463 of 2012 dated 17.06.2015.
(2.) The facts leading to this revision are as follows:- The revision petitioner is the accused and he has borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the respondent/complainant and issued a cheque bearing No. 002347 dated 09.12.2011 for Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of the complaint and when the cheque was presented for collection, the same was returned as ''insufficient funds'' on the account of the accused. Hence, the complainant has issued a notice to the accused and the notice was received by the accused, but he has not complied with the notice. Hence, a complaint was lodged under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act by the complainant before the trial Court. The Trial Court, after considering the entire evidence adduced on either side and perused the documents, found the petitioner/accused guilty and sentenced him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and one year simple imprisonment also and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment on 17.06.2015. Against the above Judgment, the accused/revision petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned II Additional District and Sessions Court, Erode and it was numbered as C.A.No. 66 of 2015. The learned II Additional Judge, after analysing the entire evidence, confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. Against which, the revision petitioner has preferred the present revision before this Court.
(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner mainly contended that the complainant in this case has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits that the complaint is not proved. The cheque amount was already paid to the complainant and the complainant has failed to return the cheque. Afterwards, he filed the false complaint against the accused. PW-1 has not come forward with the clean hands. Further, he admitted that he had filed number of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act against several persons. Hence, the case of the complainant was not proved in this case beyond all reasonable doubt. The trial Court and the First Appellate Court ought to have acquitted the accused. Since the Court below passed an erroneous Judgment, the learned counsel prays for allowing of the Criminal Revision Case by setting aside the order of the Court below.;