Raja Elango, J. - (1.) This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the petitioner/appellant/accused challenging the judgment, dated 3.3.2005, in Criminal Appeal No.263 of 2004 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur where under and whereby, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment, dated 2.7.2004, in C.C.No.335 of 2003 on the file of the V Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur.
(2.) The complainant filed a complaint against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 with the following averments: The complainant and the eldest son of the accused by name Srinivasa Rao are close friends. Taking advantage of this friendship, the accused borrowed Rs.80,000/- from the complainant on 27.5.2002 as hand loan. One T. Venkateswarlu and one K. Sambasiva Rao were present at the time of giving money to the accused. On repeated demands, the accused issued cheque, dated 22.1.2003, bearing No.0456375 for Rs.92,000/- drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, Brodipet, Guntur and requested the complainant to present the cheque for collection after 20.2.2003. As per the request of the accused, the complainant presented the cheque for collection on 24.2.2003 and it was dishonoured on 25.2.2003 with an endorsement 'account closed'. The complainant got issued legal notice, dated 5.3.2003 to the accused. The accused received the notice on 6.3.2003 and issued reply with false averments. In the legal notice, dated 5.3.2003, there was a typographical mistake with regard to the date of dishonour of cheque. The date of dishonour of cheque was mentioned as 21.2.2003. But the actual date of dishonour is 25.2.2003. A further correction notice, dated 8.3.2003, was sent to the accused and the same was received by the accused. The complainant filed O.S.No.378 of 2003 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur for recovery of the hand loan. Thus, the complainant filed the complaint against the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
(3.) Cognizance was taken against the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After appearance of the accused, copies of the documents were supplied to him and he was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for which, he denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. So, he was placed for trial.;