suffered loss in his business, he sold the entire goods available in the shop to the petitioner for a sum of Rs.8,50,000/- and also received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from him. For the remaining amount, he had obtained a cheque for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- bearing No.005925, drawn on Central Bank of India, Palliagraharam, from the petitioner and subsequently, the petitioner alsi paid the entire amount. But, the complainant did not return the cheque. Therefore, taking advantage of the possession of the cheque in question, the respondent had started threatening the petitioner. While so, the petitioner issued a legal notice dated 05.05.2010 to the respondent, demanding to return the cheque. Instead of returning the cheque, the respondent presented the same for collection, which was returned as “insufficient funds”, thereafter, the respondent issued a legal notice dated 01.11.2010, for which the petitioner also sent a suitable reply dated 12.11.2010, reiterating the position. Unfortunately, during trial, the notice sent by the petitioner dated 05.05.2010 was omitted to be marked. However, the acknowledgment for the receipt of the notice by the respondent has been marked as Ex.D3 and the respondent also accepted the receipt of the notice dated 05.05.2010, during his cross examination. Since the petitioner did not file the above notice during trial, he filed the application in the Appeal seeking to adduce the said notice dated 05.05.2010 as additional documentary evidence. The trial court dismissed the application on the ground that even though sufficient opportunities were given to the petitioner, he did not chose to mark the said notice dated 05.05.2010 before trial court, but only in order to drag on the proceedings, he has filed the present petition. Challenging the same, this Criminal Revision Case has been filed. 3. Heard Mr.K.V.Sridharan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
