(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C., to set aside the judgment in C.A.No.10 of 2020, dated 18.03.2024 of the Principal District and Sessions Court at Kanchipuram, Kanchipuram District, by confirming the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I at Kanchipuram dated 27.01.2020 in S.T.C.No.770 of 2014 and call for the records and acquit the petitioner from all the charges.)

1. The Criminal Revision challenges the judgement in C.A.10 of 2020 confirming the judgement in S.T.C.No.770 of 2014 holding the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act [ hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the respondent/complainant within one month, in default of which to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months.

2. It is the case of the respondent/complainant that the petitioner/accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 05.08.2014 and another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 10.08.2014 by executing a promissory note agreeing to repay the debt with simple interest at a rate of 24% p.a.; that the petitioner had issued two cheques dated 10.10.2014 each drawn for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in discharge of his liability to the respondent; that when the said cheques were presented for collection, it was returned for the reasons, ‘Funds Insufficient’; and that despite statutory notice, the petitioner did not make payment and hence the complaint.

3. Before the trial Court, the respondent has examined himself as PW-1 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. The petitioner neither examined any witness nor marked any document.

4. The trail Court found the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the Act, since the respondent had proved the foundational facts and the petitioner had not rebutted the statutory presumption. The appellate Court also confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court.

5. The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner had previous transactions with the respondent for which he had issued blank cheques as security; that the respondent has misused those cheques; that the trial Court ought not to have convicted him based on the sole testimony of PW-1; and that the impugned judgement is liable to be set aside.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that pursuant to the directions of this Court, the entire cheque amount was deposited to the credit of S.T.C.No.770 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Kanchipuram; and that the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial Court may be set aside.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent had proved his case that the petitioner had borrowed money from him by producing promissory notes marked as Ex-P1 and Ex-P2; that the accused had issued cheques Ex-P3 and Ex-P4 in discharge of his legally enforceable debt; that the petitioner failed to rebut the statutory presumption; and that the Courts below were justified in holding the petitioner guilty of the offence.

8. (i) The signature in the cheque is not in dispute. The fact that the cheque was dishonoured and the respondent had satisfied all the conditions for prosecuting the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Act, is also not in dispute. Therefore, the Courts below are justified in drawing the presumption under Section 139 of the Act. The petitioner had not rebutted the statutory presumption as could be seen from the findings. Hence, the trial Court and the appellate Court found that the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt, based on the oral and documentary evidence, produced by the respondent.

                   (ii). On perusal of records, this Court is of the view that the findings of the Courts below are justified and no interference is called for in this revision. In fact, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not seriously challenged the finding of guilt.

9. However, as regards the sentence, it is well settled that the object of the Section 138 of the Act is to primarily compensate the complainant. Therefore, keeping in mind the object of the Act and considering the fact that the entire cheque amount has now been deposited, this Court is inclined to set aside the sentence of the imprisonment. Since the cheques are of the year 2014, this Court is of the view that interest of justice would be met if the fine of Rs.3,25,000/- is imposed on the petitioner and the same is paid as compensation to the respondent.

10. As stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner already deposited Rs.2,00,000/- to the credit of S.T.C.No.770 of 2014 and the same shall be adjusted towards the fine. The petitioner shall deposit the balance sum of Rs.1,25,000/- towards fine within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and in default he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. The respondent shall be entitled to withdraw a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- immediately and the remaining sum of Rs.1,25,000/- on payment of fine by the petitioner. The Learned Magistrate shall take steps to secure the petitioner to undergo default sentence, if the balance fine amount is not deposited within the time stipulated by this Court.

11. The Revision is disposed of accordingly. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.