THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.11 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: On earlier two occasions, though the matter was listed under the caption “for orders”, at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner - accused, it was adjourned. However, today, in spite of listing the matter again under the caption “for orders”, none appeared for the petitioner. There is no representation also for respondent No.2 – complainant in spite of service of notice. Hence, proceeded with the matter on merits. 2. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. He supported the impugned judgment. Perused the oral and documentary material on record. 3. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner and respondent No.2 are hereinafter referred to as accused and the complainant respectively. 4. The accused was tried for the offence punishable under Section 138 read with 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “NI Act”) by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Avanigadda in C.C. No.56 of 2000 and vide judgment dated 28-06-2004 found him guilty for the same and convicted and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for three (3) months and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved by the same, accused preferred appeal in Criminal Appeal No.76 of 2004 before the learned IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Krishna, Machilipatnam and the first appellate Court dismissed the same vide judgment dated 19-12-2006 confirming the conviction and sentence of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 read with 142 of NI Act passed by the trial Court. 5. The case of the complainant is that the accused has borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/- from him on 06-12-1998 for his family necessities and executed a promissory note in his favour on the same day at Tadepalli village of Ghantasala Mandal agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. Thereafter, on his repeated demands, accused issued a cheque bearing No.287756 dated 20-01-2000 for Rs.15,000/- of KDCC Bank, Challapalli Branch towards part payment. But, when the said cheque was presented for encashment by the complainant, it was returned dishonoured with an endorsement of “insufficient funds”. Then, complainant issued legal notice dated 01-02-2000 to the accused which he refused to receive. Hence, the complainant was compelled to initiate the proceedings against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 read with 142 of NI Act before the trial Court. 6. After furnishing copies of all the documents to the accused, when he was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C., he pleaded not guilty. 7. To substantiate his case, the complainant got examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-9. Thereafter, when the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating material against him and reported defence evidence, but no evidence was adduced. 8. The trial Court considering the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with Exs.P-1 to P-9, observing that the cheque in question was issued by the accused to the complainant towards legally enforceable debt found him guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 read with 142 of NI Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him for the same as referred supra. 9. The appeal filed by the acused against the judgment of the trail Court was also dismissed by the first appellate Court confirming his conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. Assailing the same, accused filed this revision, inter alia, contending that both the Courts below failed to see that Ex.P-1 cheque dated 20-01-2000 is not supported by any consideration and as such the same is legally not enforceable; that Exs.P-1 to P-6 and Ex.P-7 promissory note dated 12-01-1998 are forged documents; that the evidence of PW.1 is suffering from several discrepancies and that both the Courts below failed to appreciate the same. 10. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 shows that the accused had borrowed Rs.20,000/- from the complainant on 16-12-1998 for his family necessities and the same is supported by Exs.P-1 to P-9, and thus it is established by the complainant that Ex.P-1 cheque was issued by the accused in favour of the complainant towards discharge of legally enforceable debt and failed to discharge the same, which the accused failed to rebut, as such, both the Courts below rightly found him guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 read with 142 of NI Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as referred supra. To disprove the same, accused failed to bring any material to the notice of this Court. Further, though the accused raised the grounds that Exs.P-1 to P-7 are forged documents and the evidence of PW.1 suffers from discrepancies, failed to place any material to show the same. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any ground to see that the impugned order of dismissal passed by the first appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.76 of 2004 dated 19-12-2006 confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence of the accused in C.C. No.56 of 2000 dated 28-06-2004 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Avanigadda, suffers from any error or infirmity. 12. Therefore, the Criminal Revision Case fails and is dismissed. __________________ B.N. RAO NALLA, J December 3, 2011. PV