The facts of the case are as follows :The complainant, A. R. Rajan, is the managing partner of Mallur Jayalakshmi Finance.JUDGMENT Karpagavinayagam, J.This revision has been preferred by the petitioner/accused, Krishnamurthy, against the judgment dated March 30, 1992, C.A. No. 36 of 1991 on the file of the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Salem, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed upon him by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Salem, by his judgment dated February 22, 1991, in C.C. No. 288 of 1989 for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").The respondent, A. R. Rajan, is the managing partner of Mallur Jayalakshmi Finance.He filed a complaint against the petitioner/accused for the offences under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, before the learned judicial Magistrate No. 1, Salem, who in turn acquitted the accused of the charge under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, but convicted him for the offences under section 138 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.Aggrieved over this judgment, the petitioner/accused filed an appeal in C.A. No. 36 of 1991, on the file of the IInd Addl.Sessions Judge, Salem.The learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused and while dismissing the appeal observed that as the accused is entitled to the benefit of remission as per G.O.Ms.No. 279, dated February 23, 1992, he need not undergo the said imprisonment of six months.Without satisfying the judgment of the first appellate court, the present revision has been filed by the petitioner in this court.The accused/petitioner used to get loans along with his father from the said finance company.The loans obtained by the accused/petitioner, of Rs. 62,000 dated March 20, 1985, Rs. 10,500 dated April 8, 1985, Rs. 9,000 dated May 5, 1986, Rs. 10,500 dated July 16, 1986, Rs. 30,000 dated March 29, 1988, and Rs. 20,000 dated December 2, 1987, totalling about Rs. 1,42,000 have not been settled by him.Part interest due on the above principal has also not been paid by the accused.When the complainant insisted the accused for settlement of the above loans, the petitioner assured that he would discharge the entire amount by one stroke on or before April 15, 1989, after disposing of his landed properties.On April 22, 1989, both the parties arrived at a settlement for the total principal due to the tune of Rs. 1,22,000 and the loan of Rs. 20,000 dated December 2, 1987, was given up.For the said amount interest was calculated at 18 per cent.On the same day, the accused assured that he would pay the said amount by way of cheque the next day, since he has already sold his landed properties.The next day, i.e., on April 23, 1989, the accused came and presented a cheque drawn on the State Bank of India, for Rs. 1,66,360, to the complainant, stating that already the said amount was deposited in the bank and if the cheque is presented, it would be honoured immediately.He requested the complainant to hand over the pronotes executed by him on different dates, in respect of the various loans referred to above.When the cheque was presented on the next day, i.e., on April 24, 1989, for encashment, to the shock and surprise of the complainant, the same was dishonoured, as "refer to drawer" for want of sufficient funds.Thereafter, the complainant sent a legal notice dated May 8, 1989, to the accused demanding payment of the amount mentioned in the dishonoured cheque, within fifteen days from the date of notice.The accused/petitioner sent a reply stating that he never obtained any loan whatever from the complainant and that he never issued any cheque as his cheque book as well as pass book were lost and that the complainant has misused the same against the petitioner.On receipt of such a reply, the complainant/respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner/accused for the offences under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and section 138 of the Act.After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Magistrate dealt with the petitioner/accused as stated earlier, which was confirmed in appeal by the lower appellate court.Hence, the revision.

Cited provisions: Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code