Madrasdated High Court · 2025

Crl.R.C.No. 245 of 2022O R D E RThis Criminal Revision Petition has been filed against the concurrent finding of the Courts below in a private complaint arising out of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. The petitioner/accused was convicted by the Trial Court for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment, and further directed to pay the cheque amount of Rs.10,36,000/- as compensation, in default to undergo one month's Simple Imprisonment, by judgment dated 13.09.2021. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner and the other accused filed an appeal in C.A.No.87 of 2021 before the Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur. By judgment dated 22.01.2022, the Lower Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal by setting aside the conviction and acquitted the second accused and dismissed the appeal as against the petitioner / first accused and confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision Petition has been filed.3. The case of the complainant is that the petitioner is the 2/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No. 245 of 2022Proprietrix of M/s. Sree Saravana Trading Company, and her son V.Senthilkumar is the authorized person to carry on the business on the said company. The petitioner's son and the complainant have been friends since their school days. On 24.08.2014, the petitioner's son borrowed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- and agreed to repay the same with 12% interest and executed a promissory note (Ex.P.1) in the presence of witnesses. In discharge of the said liability, he issued three cheques bearing Nos.115988 and 115989 of Rs.2,50,000/- dated 24.05.2017 and another cheque bearing No.021902 for Rs.5,36,000/- dated 25.05.2017. The said cheques were signed by the petitioner's son as the authorized signatory. The cheques were presented for encashment in the complainant's bank namely Allahabad bank, Tiruppur branch on 26.05.2017. However, they were dishonoured on 25.05.2017 and 29.05.2017 with an endorsement “insufficient funds”. On 05.06.2017, a legal notice was issued to the petitioner/accused demanding repayment of the cheque amount. The notice was duly received, but the petitioner/accused, neither repaid the cheque amount, nor sent any reply giving reasons. Thereafter, following the statutory procedure, a complaint was filed against A1 and A2 and the same has been taken on file as C.C.No.316 of 2017 before the Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level, Tiruppur.3/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No. 245 of 20224. On the side of the respondent/ complainant, he examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.7. The Manager of Karnataka Bank, Tiruppur branch, was examined as P.W.2 and through him Exs.P.8 to P.12 were marked. On conclusion of the Trial, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner/A1 against which an appeal was preferred. The Lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal as regards A2 and acquitted him, however, it dismissed the appeal as against the petitioner / A1 by confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on him. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the admitted position of the respondent is that it was the petitioner's son who was carrying on the entire business of M/s. Sree Saravana Trading Company and the petitioner's name was used only as a name lender for sentimental reasons. He further submitted that the petitioner has got nothing to do with the business of the proprietrix firm. Further, the petitioner's son was the authorized person to operate the bank account of the firm. This was confirmed by the evidence of P.W.2 and by Exs.P.8 to P.12, which clearly establishes that the petitioner's son alone was the authorized signatory. It is 4/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No. 245 of 2022also not disputed by the respondent that the entire business of the proprietrix firm was managed by petitioner's son, who executed the promissory note Ex.P.1 and issued the cheques Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.4 in favour of the respondent/complainant. 6. He further submitted that the admitted position of the respondent itself was that it was the petitioner's son who borrowed a sum of Rs.10 lakhs on 24.08.2014, which is evident from the statutory notice Ex.P.6 as well as the promissory note Ex.P.1. During cross-examination, P.W.1, admitted that from his mobile number 9894300225, he had sent a WhatsApp message to the mobile phone of petitioner's son 9345689789 demanding repayment of Rs.10 lakhs. It was also admitted that for the said loan of Rs.10 lakhs, part payments were already made and that only Rs.6-7 lakhs remained due. Thereafter, the complainant attempted to explain that the loan of Rs.10 lakhs was independent of the earlier transactions. He further submitted that there were other transactions between the complainant and the accused and without recovery of earlier due, no prudent person would have advanced an additional loan of Rs.10 lakhs. In his evidence, P.W.1 admitted that during October 2016 he had received interest amount of R.20,000/- and had also sent 5/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No. 245 of 2022WhatsApp message that a due from the petitioner is Rs.5 lakhs and he further confirms that this amount is due for the transaction of the year 2014. He further submitted that the respondent has already filed a civil suit in O.S.No.433 of 2018 before the District Court, Tiruppur, seeking recovery of Rs.10,36,000/-, which is still pending. He further submitted that the respondent himself admitted that the petitioner is due to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs, but neither the Trial Court, nor the Sessions Court had considered or analyzed this evidence, but merely gone on the basis of the statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act holding that the cheques were issued only towards discharge of liability, and the said cheques having been dishonoured, thus convicted and sentenced the petitioner. 7. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rangappa Vs Sri Mohan (2010) 11 SCC 441, which has been consistently followed by the Apex Court as well as this Court, wherein it has been held that(i) Once the execution of cheque is admitted, 6/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No. 245 of 2022Section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the discharge of any debt or other liability.(ii) The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise the probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities. (iii) To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on evidence led by him or acused can also rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise a probable defence. Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which they rely. (iv) That it is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box in support of his defence, Section 139 imposes an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden. (v) It is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box to support his defence. 8. In the present case, the defence of the petitioner establishes that 7/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No. 245 of 2022he had no direct transaction with the respondent, and even as per the admitted position of the respondent, only a balance of Rs.5 lakhs was due. The petitioner had also attempted mediation on several occasions, but the respondent failed to participate in the mediation or arrive at a settlement. He further submitted that, in this case A2, who was the signatory to the cheque and the promissory note, has already been acquitted by the Sessions Court, and no appeal has been preferred by the respondent against the said acquittal. In view of the same, conviction of the petitioner is not sustainable.9. The respondent/complainant strongly opposed the petitioner contentions. The petitioner had not denied that the petitioner's son and the respondent were friends from school days. They have also not questioned the respondent's financial capability of giving loan. The respondent had proved that he had taken a loan from his father and two of the relatives and extended the loan to the petitioner. The firm is in the name of the petitioner as Proprietrix and she is liable for all the transactions happening in the firm. What is the internal arrangement between the petitioner and her son in the business dealing is not known to the respondent. The petitioner's son informed the respondent that all the business transactions are being done with 8/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No. 245 of 2022the knowledge and concurrence of his mother and he has been authorized person to sign in the cheque and to do the business in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner through her son had taken loan, not once, but on several occasions and this petitioner is now attempting to give explanation for the earlier payments and project the same as the payment was already made towards the present loan. As far as the present loan is concerned, the petitioner had again taken Rs.10 lakhs loan for the business, which is confirmed by Ex.P.1, pronote and by issuance of 3 cheques for Rs.10,36,000/-. To prove that the petitioner is the person who authorized her son to carry out all the business of the propreitrix firm, the respondent had examined P.W.2, Bank Manager of the petitioner and through him, Ex.P.8 to Ex.P.12 have been marked, which is also seriously disputed. He further submitted that the petitioner had taken a loan in the year 2014 and it is almost 9 years over, still the respondent yet to seize the fire of the foy. Further, he also filed the civil suit in O.S. No.433 of 2018 against the petitioner, but she had not participated in Civil suit and was set exparte, and the Civil Court had rendered a judgment, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,36,000/- along with 6% interest, pursuant to which, the respondent had initiated attachment proceedings and the same is pending. The respondent has been 9/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No. 245 of 2022running from pillar to post for the past 9 years. Hence, if the petitioner is willing to pay the amount of Rs.10,36,000/- along with 6% interest, the petitioner's proposal can be considered and any amount lesser to it, is unacceptable.10. Considering the submissions and the perusal of the materials, it is seen that in this case, the petitioner is the Proprietrix of M/s.Saravana Trading and it is not seriously disputed that it is not denied that her son Senthilkumar who was carrying on the entire business of the petitioner's firm and he was the authorized signatory who had issued three cheques for Rs.10,36,000/- to the defacto complainant for discharge of liability. Added to it, he had also executed a pro-note Ex.P.1. The respondent in his evidence admits that the loan of Rs.10 lakhs was given on 25.08.2014 and thereafter, he admits that from his mobile phone 9894300225 he had been sending whats app message to petitioner's son Selvakumar 9345689789 claiming Rs.10 lakhs and thereafter he had also sent whats app message confirming that there has been some repayment in the loan and due is to the tune of Rs.6-7 lakhs and further it seems that 2014-2016, there have been payment of interest which has not been disputed or denied. An explanation has been given that 10/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No. 245 of 2022subsequent to this loan, there has been other transaction but no material was produced to prove the same. But the clear admission by the respondent is that he had received the amount from the petitioner and the amount due from the petitioner is only to the tune of Rs.6-7 lakhs.11.On perusal of the judgment of the Trial Court as well as Lower Appellate Court, neither the Trial Court nor the Lower Appellate Court had considered the evidence and given the findings of the judgment and the judgment is based involving under Section 118 and 139 of N.I. Act stating that the issuance of the cheque is not been denied and hence the petitioner is liable to pay the cheque amount of Rs.10,36,000/- as compensation. Further, in this case, the petitioner is ready to deposit the cheque amount of Rs.10,36,000/- to give a quietus to both the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.316/2017 under Section 138 of NI Act as well as civil proceedings in O.S.No.433 of 2018. The respondent is not satisfied with the cheque amount and not acceptable. The petitioner to deposit the cheque amount of Rs.10,36,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs and thirty six thousand only) before the trial Court. This amount to be taken into consideration while deciding the civil suit in O.S.No.433 of 2018 and its consequential proceedings.11/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No. 245 of 202212. In view of the above, this Court set asides the judgment, dated 13.09.2021 in C.C.No.316 of 2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level, Tiruppur and the judgment, dated 22.01.2022 in C.A.No.87 of 2021 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur. The petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,36,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs and thirty six thousand only) to the credit of C.C.No.316 of 2017 on the file of the Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level, Tiruppur (trial Court) within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the trial Court shall redeposit the same in a interest bearing account, thereafter, it is for the respondent to receive the said cheque amount with accrued interest if any by filing appropriate petition.13. It is a conditional order. In the event of failure of deposit of the said amount by the petitioner within the stipulated period, this order stands cancelled and the conviction of the trial Court confirmed by the lower appellate Court, will be restored.12/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No. 245 of 202214. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed. 14.08.2025 drlTo1. The Principal and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur2. The Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level, TiruppurM.NIRMAL KUMAR,J.,13/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No. 245 of 2022drlCRL R.C.No.245 of 202214.08.202514/14

Crl.R.C.No. 245 of 2022O R D E RThis Criminal Revision Petition has been filed against the concurrent finding of the Courts below in a private complaint arising out of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. The petitioner/accused was convicted by the Trial Court for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment, and further directed to pay the cheque amount of Rs.10,36,000/- as compensation, in default to undergo one month's Simple Imprisonment, by judgment dated 13.09.2021. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner and the other accused filed an appeal in C.A.No.87 of 2021 before the Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur. By judgment dated 22.01.2022, the Lower Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal by setting aside the conviction and acquitted the second accused and dismissed the appeal as against the petitioner / first accused and confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision Petition has been filed.3. The case of the complainant is that the petitioner is the 2/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No. 245 of 2022Proprietrix of M/s. Sree Saravana Trading Company, and her son V.Senthilkumar is the authorized person to carry on the business on the said company. The petitioner's son and the complainant have been friends since their school days. On 24.08.2014, the petitioner's son borrowed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- and agreed to repay the same with 12% interest and executed a promissory note (Ex.P.1) in the presence of witnesses. In discharge of the said liability, he issued three cheques bearing Nos.115988 and 115989 of Rs.2,50,000/- dated 24.05.2017 and another cheque bearing No.021902 for Rs.5,36,000/- dated 25.05.2017. The said cheques were signed by the petitioner's son as the authorized signatory. The cheques were presented for encashment in the complainant's bank namely Allahabad bank, Tiruppur branch on 26.05.2017. However, they were dishonoured on 25.05.2017 and 29.05.2017 with an endorsement “insufficient funds”. On 05.06.2017, a legal notice was issued to the petitioner/accused demanding repayment of the cheque amount. The notice was duly received, but the petitioner/accused, neither repaid the cheque amount, nor sent any reply giving reasons. Thereafter, following the statutory procedure, a complaint was filed against A1 and A2 and the same has been taken on file as C.C.No.316 of 2017 before the Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level, Tiruppur.3/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No. 245 of 20224. On the side of the respondent/ complainant, he examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.7. The Manager of Karnataka Bank, Tiruppur branch, was examined as P.W.2 and through him Exs.P.8 to P.12 were marked. On conclusion of the Trial, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner/A1 against which an appeal was preferred. The Lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal as regards A2 and acquitted him, however, it dismissed the appeal as against the petitioner / A1 by confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on him. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the admitted position of the respondent is that it was the petitioner's son who was carrying on the entire business of M/s. Sree Saravana Trading Company and the petitioner's name was used only as a name lender for sentimental reasons. He further submitted that the petitioner has got nothing to do with the business of the proprietrix firm. Further, the petitioner's son was the authorized person to operate the bank account of the firm. This was confirmed by the evidence of P.W.2 and by Exs.P.8 to P.12, which clearly establishes that the petitioner's son alone was the authorized signatory. It is 4/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No. 245 of 2022also not disputed by the respondent that the entire business of the proprietrix firm was managed by petitioner's son, who executed the promissory note Ex.P.1 and issued the cheques Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.4 in favour of the respondent/complainant. 6. He further submitted that the admitted position of the respondent itself was that it was the petitioner's son who borrowed a sum of Rs.10 lakhs on 24.08.2014, which is evident from the statutory notice Ex.P.6 as well as the promissory note Ex.P.1. During cross-examination, P.W.1, admitted that from his mobile number 9894300225, he had sent a WhatsApp message to the mobile phone of petitioner's son 9345689789 demanding repayment of Rs.10 lakhs. It was also admitted that for the said loan of Rs.10 lakhs, part payments were already made and that only Rs.6-7 lakhs remained due. Thereafter, the complainant attempted to explain that the loan of Rs.10 lakhs was independent of the earlier transactions. He further submitted that there were other transactions between the complainant and the accused and without recovery of earlier due, no prudent person would have advanced an additional loan of Rs.10 lakhs. In his evidence, P.W.1 admitted that during October 2016 he had received interest amount of R.20,000/- and had also sent 5/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No. 245 of 2022WhatsApp message that a due from the petitioner is Rs.5 lakhs and he further confirms that this amount is due for the transaction of the year 2014. He further submitted that the respondent has already filed a civil suit in O.S.No.433 of 2018 before the District Court, Tiruppur, seeking recovery of Rs.10,36,000/-, which is still pending. He further submitted that the respondent himself admitted that the petitioner is due to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs, but neither the Trial Court, nor the Sessions Court had considered or analyzed this evidence, but merely gone on the basis of the statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act holding that the cheques were issued only towards discharge of liability, and the said cheques having been dishonoured, thus convicted and sentenced the petitioner. 7. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rangappa Vs Sri Mohan (2010) 11 SCC 441, which has been consistently followed by the Apex Court as well as this Court, wherein it has been held that(i) Once the execution of cheque is admitted, 6/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No. 245 of 2022Section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the discharge of any debt or other liability.(ii) The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise the probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities. (iii) To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on evidence led by him or acused can also rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise a probable defence. Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which they rely. (iv) That it is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box in support of his defence, Section 139 imposes an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden. (v) It is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box to support his defence. 8. In the present case, the defence of the petitioner establishes that 7/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No. 245 of 2022he had no direct transaction with the respondent, and even as per the admitted position of the respondent, only a balance of Rs.5 lakhs was due. The petitioner had also attempted mediation on several occasions, but the respondent failed to participate in the mediation or arrive at a settlement. He further submitted that, in this case A2, who was the signatory to the cheque and the promissory note, has already been acquitted by the Sessions Court, and no appeal has been preferred by the respondent against the said acquittal. In view of the same, conviction of the petitioner is not sustainable.9. The respondent/complainant strongly opposed the petitioner contentions. The petitioner had not denied that the petitioner's son and the respondent were friends from school days. They have also not questioned the respondent's financial capability of giving loan. The respondent had proved that he had taken a loan from his father and two of the relatives and extended the loan to the petitioner. The firm is in the name of the petitioner as Proprietrix and she is liable for all the transactions happening in the firm. What is the internal arrangement between the petitioner and her son in the business dealing is not known to the respondent. The petitioner's son informed the respondent that all the business transactions are being done with 8/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No. 245 of 2022the knowledge and concurrence of his mother and he has been authorized person to sign in the cheque and to do the business in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner through her son had taken loan, not once, but on several occasions and this petitioner is now attempting to give explanation for the earlier payments and project the same as the payment was already made towards the present loan. As far as the present loan is concerned, the petitioner had again taken Rs.10 lakhs loan for the business, which is confirmed by Ex.P.1, pronote and by issuance of 3 cheques for Rs.10,36,000/-. To prove that the petitioner is the person who authorized her son to carry out all the business of the propreitrix firm, the respondent had examined P.W.2, Bank Manager of the petitioner and through him, Ex.P.8 to Ex.P.12 have been marked, which is also seriously disputed. He further submitted that the petitioner had taken a loan in the year 2014 and it is almost 9 years over, still the respondent yet to seize the fire of the foy. Further, he also filed the civil suit in O.S. No.433 of 2018 against the petitioner, but she had not participated in Civil suit and was set exparte, and the Civil Court had rendered a judgment, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,36,000/- along with 6% interest, pursuant to which, the respondent had initiated attachment proceedings and the same is pending. The respondent has been 9/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No. 245 of 2022running from pillar to post for the past 9 years. Hence, if the petitioner is willing to pay the amount of Rs.10,36,000/- along with 6% interest, the petitioner's proposal can be considered and any amount lesser to it, is unacceptable.10. Considering the submissions and the perusal of the materials, it is seen that in this case, the petitioner is the Proprietrix of M/s.Saravana Trading and it is not seriously disputed that it is not denied that her son Senthilkumar who was carrying on the entire business of the petitioner's firm and he was the authorized signatory who had issued three cheques for Rs.10,36,000/- to the defacto complainant for discharge of liability. Added to it, he had also executed a pro-note Ex.P.1. The respondent in his evidence admits that the loan of Rs.10 lakhs was given on 25.08.2014 and thereafter, he admits that from his mobile phone 9894300225 he had been sending whats app message to petitioner's son Selvakumar 9345689789 claiming Rs.10 lakhs and thereafter he had also sent whats app message confirming that there has been some repayment in the loan and due is to the tune of Rs.6-7 lakhs and further it seems that 2014-2016, there have been payment of interest which has not been disputed or denied. An explanation has been given that 10/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No. 245 of 2022subsequent to this loan, there has been other transaction but no material was produced to prove the same. But the clear admission by the respondent is that he had received the amount from the petitioner and the amount due from the petitioner is only to the tune of Rs.6-7 lakhs.11.On perusal of the judgment of the Trial Court as well as Lower Appellate Court, neither the Trial Court nor the Lower Appellate Court had considered the evidence and given the findings of the judgment and the judgment is based involving under Section 118 and 139 of N.I. Act stating that the issuance of the cheque is not been denied and hence the petitioner is liable to pay the cheque amount of Rs.10,36,000/- as compensation. Further, in this case, the petitioner is ready to deposit the cheque amount of Rs.10,36,000/- to give a quietus to both the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.316/2017 under Section 138 of NI Act as well as civil proceedings in O.S.No.433 of 2018. The respondent is not satisfied with the cheque amount and not acceptable. The petitioner to deposit the cheque amount of Rs.10,36,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs and thirty six thousand only) before the trial Court. This amount to be taken into consideration while deciding the civil suit in O.S.No.433 of 2018 and its consequential proceedings.11/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No. 245 of 202212. In view of the above, this Court set asides the judgment, dated 13.09.2021 in C.C.No.316 of 2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level, Tiruppur and the judgment, dated 22.01.2022 in C.A.No.87 of 2021 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur. The petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,36,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs and thirty six thousand only) to the credit of C.C.No.316 of 2017 on the file of the Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level, Tiruppur (trial Court) within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the trial Court shall redeposit the same in a interest bearing account, thereafter, it is for the respondent to receive the said cheque amount with accrued interest if any by filing appropriate petition.13. It is a conditional order. In the event of failure of deposit of the said amount by the petitioner within the stipulated period, this order stands cancelled and the conviction of the trial Court confirmed by the lower appellate Court, will be restored.12/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No. 245 of 202214. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed. 14.08.2025 drlTo1. The Principal and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur2. The Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level, TiruppurM.NIRMAL KUMAR,J.,13/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No. 245 of 2022drlCRL R.C.No.245 of 202214.08.202514/14