THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.96 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner – accused, Nandigam Rama Mohan Rao, assailing the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.188 of 2001 dated 18-01-2007 passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District confirming the conviction and sentence passed against him (accused) for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1988 (for short “NI Act”) in C.C. No.360 of 2000 dated 24-09-2001 passed by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru. 2. The revision petitioner is accused, respondent No.1 is State and respondent No.2 is complainant. 3. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner and respondent No.2 are hereinafter referred to as accused and complainant respectively. 4. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as under: On 29-05-1996, accused borrowed a sum of Rs.10,000/- from him agreeing to repay the same with interest at 36% per annum and acknowledging the same executed Ex.P-1 promissory note in his favour on that day itself. On 03-02-1999, accused paid Rs.100/- towards part payment and endorsed the same on the back of Ex.P-1 promissory note. Subsequently, on his repeated demands, accused issued a cheque for Rs.10,000/- on 10-03-2000 of Bank of Baroda towards part payment. When he presented the same in his bank, Punjab National Bank, Eluru, for encashment, it was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. On that, he issued a legal notice dated 20-03-2000 to the accused and the accused in spite of receipt of the same neither paid the amount nor gave any reply. Hence, he was constrained to approach the Court against the accused by way of private complaint for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act. 5. When the trial Court examined the accused under Section 251 Cr.P.C., he denied the case against him and pleaded not guilty. 6. To substantiate his case, the complainant got himself examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-7 documents. After closure of the evidence on behalf of the complainant, when the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating material against him, but no oral or documentary evidence was adduced on his behalf. 7. The trial Court after an elaborate consideration of both oral and documentary evidence available on record, found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act holding that the cheque in question, which was dishonorued when presented for encashment by the complainant, was issued by the accused towards discharge of part payment of legally enforceable debt to the complainant and he failed to do so. Therefore, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for two (2) months for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. Aggrieved by the same, accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.188 of 2001 before the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru. The learned District Judge after re-appreciating the entire oral and documentary evidence on record dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment of the trial Court. Assailing the same, accused filed this revision. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the accused, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 9. Now the contention of the learned counsel for the accused is that both the Courts below erroneously found the accused guilty of the offence relying on the evidence of PW.1 and Exs.P-1 to P-7 without there being any corroborative evidence to the same and that the Courts below failed to see that the complainant failed to establish his case beyond reasonable doubt. Further, the Courts below failed to see that except the self-serving statement of PW.1, there is no other evidence to prove that Ex.P-4 cheque dated 10-03-2000 was issued by the accused to the complainant towards discharge of legally enforceable debt. Hence, the accused may be acquitted setting aside the impugned judgment. 10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor supporting the impugned judgment submitted that both the Courts below rightly found the accused guilty of the offence by giving cogent reasons and accordingly convicted and sentenced him and that there are no grounds to interfere with the same, as such, the revision may be dismissed. 11. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing this revision ? 12. The case of the complainant is that accused borrowed a sum of Rs.10,000/- from him for agricultural operations to repay the same with interest at 36% per annum and acknowledging the same he issued Ex.P-1 promissory note dated 29-09-1996 and on 03-02-1999 paid Rs.100/- towards part payment in discharge of loan and made Ex.P-2 endorsement to that effect on Ex.P-1 and thereafter he issued Ex.P-3 cheque dated 10-03-2000 for Rs.10,000/- towards part payment, but when the same was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured, as such, he issued Ex.P-6 legal notice dated 20-03-2000 and in spite of receipt of the same by the accused under Ex.P-7, neither he repaid the loan amount nor gave reply notice, as such, he was compelled to file the complaint. 13. On the other hand, the accused himself admitted in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he borrowed Rs.10,000/- from the complainant. The material on record also reveals that there is no dispute as to Ex.P-1 promissory note dated 29-09-1996, Ex.P-2 endorsement dated 03-02-1999 on the back of Ex.P-1 promissory note as to part payment of Rs.100/- by the accused, issuance of Ex.P-3 cheque dated 10-03-2000 in favour of the complainant and also its dishonour vide Ex.P-4 cheque return memo dated 10-03-2000. There is also no dispute as to receipt of Ex.P-6 legal notice dated 20-03-2000 under Ex.P-7 acknowledgement. In view of the above and in the absence of non-issuance of reply to Ex.P-6 legal notice, as rightly pointed out by the first appellate Court, the defence taken by the accused that he has issued the cheque in dispute without mentioning the date on it and the complainant misused the same by filling up its columns is a concocted one and cannot be accepted and on the other hand it strengthens the case of the complainant. Then, the only defence remains to be considered is there is no corroborative evidence to support the evidence of PW.1 and Exs.P-1 to P-7. When the accused himself admits the factum of borrowing Rs.10,000/- from the complainant and do not dispute issuance of Ex.P-1 promissory note, Ex.P-2 endorsement as to part payment, issuance of Ex.P-3 cheque, receipt of Ex.P-6 legal notice under Ex.P-7 acknowledgement and also his signatures on them, there is no necessity of any corroborative evidence. 14. In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the trial Court rightly found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 138 of NI Act and convicted him for the said offence and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for two months and the same was confirmed by the lower appellate Court. Thus, there are no grounds to interfere with the judgments impugned. The point is accordingly answered. 15. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.188 of 2001 dated 18-01-2007 passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District which was filed against the conviction and sentence passed in C.C. No.360 of 2000 by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru. __________________ B.N. RAO NALLA, J Date:_____________ PV