ORDER 1. The revision petitioner/appellant/accused has filed the present revision in Crl. R.C. No. 240 of 2005 against the judgment passed in C.A. No. 305 of 2004, on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Coimbatore, dated 4.2.2005, modifying the judgment passed in C.C. No. 4 of 2000, on the file of Judicial Magistrate-II, Udumalpet, dated, 5.7.2004. 2. The complainant’s case is as follows: The complainant is the owner of the tractor bearing Registration No. TN L 6436 and trailer bearing chassis No. 1414 of 1995. The accused had met the complainant at Moonar and had expressed his desire to purchase the trailer alone. The complainant had agreed to sell the trailer for Rs. 55,000/-. As the accused did not have spot cash, he issued a cheque dated 5.2.1997, drawn on Federal Bank, Moonar bearing serial No. SBA 526004 for the sum of Rs. 55,000/-. The complainant deposited the said cheque with his bankers viz., Bank of Baroda, Pedambampatti. However, the cheque returned on 8.5.1997 due to insufficient funds in the account of the accused and the return memo was received by the complainant on 20.5.1997. The complainant issued a lawyer’s notice, dated 22.5.1997 to the accused which was received by the accused on 28.5.1997. As the accused has not paid the said amount even after receipt of notice, the complainant filed the complaint before the Court of Judicial Magistrate-II, Udumalpet. As the accused had pleaded not guilty before the trial Court, enquiry was conducted. 3. On the complainant’s side, two witnesses were examined and six documents were marked as Exhibits P-1 to P-6 viz., Exhibit P-1-cheque given by the accused dated 5.2.1997; Exhibit P-2-return memo dated 8.5.1997; Exhibit P-3-memo given by the bank to the complainant dated 20.5.1997; Exhibit P-4-lawyer’s notice dated 22.5.1997; Exhibit P-5-acknowledgment card dated 28.5.1997 and Exhibit P-6-bank account statement of accused. 4. P.W.1, the complainant herein adduced evidence that he got acquainted with the accused during the course of letting out his tractor for rent; that he was the owner of the tractor bearing Registration No. TN L 6436 and trailer bearing chassis No. 1414 of 1995; that while he had proceeded to Moonar in his tractor, the accused had expressed his intention of buying his trailer; that they had negotiated the price and he had agreed to sell the trailer to him for Rs. 55,000/-; that the accused had given a cheque drawn on Federal Bank, Moonar for a sum of Rs. 55,000/- (Exhibit P-1); that he had deposited the said cheque with his bankers viz., Canara Bank, Pedambampatti; that it was returned on 8.5.1997 due to insufficient funds in the account of the accused; that he was informed about the return of cheque through telegram dated 20.5.1997, sent by his bank; that he had sent a lawyer’s notice to the accused on 22.5.1997 and that the same had been received by the accused on 28.5.1997, (Exhibit P-5); that the accused had neither paid the cheque amount nor replied to the notice; that he had subsequently filed the complaint before the trial Court. P.W.2.-Nobilvar Singh, the Manager of Federal Bank, Moonar adduced evidence that the accused had an account in their bank; that the bank account number of the accused is 4385; that the said cheque (Exhibit P-1) had been given by them to the accused; that on 8.5.1997, when the said cheque came for clearance to their bank, it was returned due to insufficient funds in the account of the accused; that the accused had a balance of only Rs. 328.90 in his account; and in support of his evidence had marked Exhibit P-6, the bank statement of accused. 5. On the respondent’s side, five witnesses were examined and two documents were marked as Exhibits R-1 and R-2 viz., Exhibit R-1-identity card of A.I.T.U.C; Exhibit R-2-the xerox copy of salary register, wherein the thumb impression of the accused has been shown. 6. R.W.1-Ayyappan, the accused herein, had adduced evidence that he is residing at Valparai Estate of Bajaj Division, Kerala, that he was employed as a labourer in the said Bajaj Division; that he had been working in the said firm for 31 years; that his brother is running tea shop; that he is not an educated person and that he used to affix his thumb impression while receiving salary; that the complainant-Sundara Raj had offerred to sell his tractor/trailer for a price of Rs. 1,60,000/-; that he had offered to buy it for Rs. 1,20,000/-; that the complainant had said that the price could be sorted out the next day; and had left the tractor in front of his brother’s tea shop and handed over the key of the tractor to him; that he had negotiated for a price of Rs. 1,60,000/-; that he had offered to buy it for Rs. 1,20,000/-; that the complainant had said that the price could be sorted out the next day; and had left the tractor in front of his brother’s tea shop and handed over the key of the tractor to him; that he had negotiated for a price of Rs. 1,30,000/-, the next day to which the complainant had agreed and that during negotiations, his father and his brother- Ayyappan were also present; that he had paid an advance ofRs. 60,000/- to the complainant; that the fact of his handing over the said advance amount of Rs. 60,000/- has been witnessed by his brother-Ayyappan and Kottaisami; that the said Sundara Raj had promised to secure finance from a Finance Company; that it was stated there that finance could be arranged only, if cheques are given for the said finance; that he had procured cheques from the bank and had signed one of the cheques and had also signed some blank papers and that the said cheque in dispute has been given by him to Swamiappan Finance-Annamalai; that he had not issued any cheques to the said Sundara Raj; that he had driven the tractor-trailer for two days and had found the steering not operational on bends; that the complainant had promised to set it right within two days and had taken the tractor-trailer; that the complainant had not returned the advance paid by him; that he had gone to Swamiappan Finance and asked for return of cheque and blank documents signed by him; that they had stated that Sundar Raj had paid Rs. 5,000/- as documentation charges to the said Finance Company and had taken the cheques and blank documents from them; that on the intervention of the panchayat president, it was agreed that an interest of Rs. 10,000/- should by paid and this was complied with and that he had not subsequently paid any interest; that the allegations that he had issued a promissory note for Rs. 10,000/- should by paid and this was complied with and that he had not subsequently paid any interest; that the allegations that he had issued a promissory note for Rs. 85,000/- for loan received by him; that he had paid the interest for the said loan and that he had given a cheque on 3.12.1997 for the principal amount are all untrue; that the signature seen in the acknowledgment card is not his; that a false case has been hoisted upon him and that the complainant should be made to pay compensation for falsely implicating him and confining him to prison. 7. R.W.2-Chinna Ayyappan, the brother of the accused-R.W.1, had adduced evidence that he is aware of the business transaction entered into between his brother and the complainant regarding tractor sale; that the complainant had negotiated the sale of tractor for Rs. 1,30,000/-; that an advance of Rs. 60,000/- was paid to the complainant; that he, his father and one Kottaisami were present at the time of payment of advance; that the complainant had assured his brother that he would arrange for the balance amount of Rs. 70,000/- through a Finance Company at Annamalai; that his brother does not know how to read or write; 8. R.W.3-Kottaisamy had adduced evidence which corroborated with the evidence of R.W.2. R.W.4-Ramar, in his evidence adduced that he is a permanent labourer at Thalaiaru estate; that he is the leader of A.I.T.U.C. Union; that 5 to 6 years ago, when he residing at Valparai Estate, the complainant and accused met each other in a shop and were engaged in a heated discussion about the repairs in the tractor; that the said Sundara Raj had brought the tractor back after repairs and that the accused had paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for repair charges to the complainant. 9. R.W.5-Zaveri had adduced evidence that he is the Manager of Tata Tea Estate at Valparai; that the accused Ayyappan is working as a coolie in his firm from 1974 onwards; that he used to affix his thumb impression and receive his monthly salary; that he had marked Exhibit R2, the salary slip of the accused containing his thumb impression. 10. R.W.5-Zaveri had adduced evidence that he is the Manager of Tata Tea Estate at Valparai; that the accused Ayyappan is working as a coolie in his firm from 1974 onwards; that he used to affix his thumb impression and receive his monthly salary; that he had marked Exhibit R2, the salary slip of the accused containing his thumb impression. 10. R.W.1 had also stated in his evidence that a case has been filed against him by Swamiappan Finance in C.C. No. 159 of 2000 and the complainant in the case, Ramasamy had received the said blank cheques issued by him and had initiated the above two cases. It was also deposed that when the case was pending before the Court, the complainant had negotiated with him and had taken Rs. 10,000/- from him. But, the learned Magistrate on considering that the accused had in his evidence admitted that he had signed the cheques were not inclined to believe the evidence of R.W.5, who had stated that the accused used to affix his thumb impression while receiving his salary. Further, the learned Magistrate, on considering that the signatures contained in the sworn affidavit during chief examination of accused and the signature and the other signatures obtained from him during his oral evidence matched the signature contained in the impugned cheque. The learned Magistrate also considered that the owner of Swamiappan Finance viz., Sundara Raj has not been examined as a necessary witness to prove the case of the accused. It is also seen that the address on the postal card sent to the said Sundara Raj of Swamiappan Finance is incorrect, and as such the learned Magistrate was not inclined to believe that the impugned cheque (Exhibit P-1) had been issued in favour of Swamiappan Finance. Further, the learned Magistrate held that no documentary evidence had been produced on the side of the accused to show that the accused had paid Rs. 60,000/- advance to the complainant and also that Rs. 10,000/- had been given by him to the complainant as per negotiated terms of agreement. Further, it was held that non-reply to the notice (Exhibit P-4) sent by the accused weakens the case of the accused. 11. 60,000/- advance to the complainant and also that Rs. 10,000/- had been given by him to the complainant as per negotiated terms of agreement. Further, it was held that non-reply to the notice (Exhibit P-4) sent by the accused weakens the case of the accused. 11. On scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate held the accused guilty of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also imposed a fine of Rs. 4,500/- in default of fine, he was to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of three months. 12. Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the trial Court, the accused had preferred a Criminal Appeal in C.A. No. 305 of 2004 before the Additional District Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Coimbatore. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the trial Court had failed to see that the complainant had failed to prove that the accused had issued the cheque for any legally enforceable debt and that the trial Court had failed to consider the evidence of the witnesses R.W.2 to R.W.5. The learned Judge, after scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence and perusal of the impugned judgment of trial Court held the accused guilty of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. However, the learned judge while confirming the fine of Rs. 4,500/- imposed by the trial Court, modified the period of simple imprisonment from one year to six months. 13. Aggrieved by the said dismissal of his appeal, the appellant has filed the present revision before this Court. 14. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has argued that both the Courts below have failed to consider that the said cheque had been misused by the respondent herein in collusion with T.Ramasamy, Swamiappan Finance. It was also argued that the said cheque had not been given for discharge of any legally enforceable debt. It was also informed that the petitioner herein is a diabetic patient and as such the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the accused is harsh and excessive. 15. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner further submits that the accused is a poor agriculturist and he had already undergone imprisonment for a period of five months and 12 days, out of the total imprisonment period of six months. 15. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner further submits that the accused is a poor agriculturist and he had already undergone imprisonment for a period of five months and 12 days, out of the total imprisonment period of six months. Now, his health condition has deteriorated. Besides, he is also economically weak. The revision petitioner is the breadwinner of his family. 16. The learned counsel for the complainant submits that the accused has paid the penalty amount of a sum of Rs. 4,500/-. As per first appellate Court’s judgment, the accused has to undergo the imprisonment of a further period of 18 days. The learned counsel further submitted that the case was proved before the Courts below. As such, the complainant is entitled to receive compensation from the accused. 17. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned order of the Courts below, and also considering that the revision petitioner had undergone imprisonment for a period of five months and 12 days, this Court is of the view that the period of imprisonment already undergone by the accused is adequate punishment. Therefore, the accused is set at liberty and remaining period of imprisonment imposed by the appellate Court (i.e., 18 days) is waived by this Court. Accordingly, ordered. 18. Resultantly, the above revision is disposed of with the above observations. Consequently, the judgment and sentence passed in C.A. No. 305 of 2004, on the file of the Additional District Sessions Court, Fast Track Court-I, Coimbatore, dated 4.2.2005, modifying the conviction and sentence passed in C.C. No. 4 of 2000, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-II, Udumalpet, dated 5.7.2004 is modified. Accordingly ordered. Revision disposed of.