High Court · 2025

Crl.R.C.No.471 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 11.06.2025CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.R.C.No.471 of 2023P.D.Yuvaraj @ Paul Yuvaraj ... Petitioner Vs.R.Kannappan ...RespondentCriminal Revision Case filed under Section 394 r/w Section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the Judgment dated 19.01.2023 in Criminal Appeal No.408 of 2019 by the learned XVII Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai confirming the Judgment dated 01.10.2019 passed in C.C.No.8173 of 2017 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court II, Egmore, Allikulam, Chennai - 600 003 For Petitioner : Mr.T.S.Rajamohan For Respondent : M/s S.V.Devasathi O R D E R The present Revision has been preferred against the Judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No.408 of 2019 dated 19.01.2023 on the file of the learned XVII Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.471 of 2023 thereby confirming the order of Conviction and Sentence imposed in C.C.No.8173 of 2017 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court II, Egmore, Allikulam, Chennai for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.2. The respondent / defacto complainant lodged a complaint under for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that the petitioner herein borrowed a loan for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- and agreed to pay the the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. However, the petitioner failed to pay any interest as agreed by him and on the repeated request made by the respondent, the petitioner issued a cheque dated 01.06.2017 for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. When it was presented for collection, the same was dishonoured for the reason 'funds insufficient'. On 03.07.2017, after causing statutory notice, the respondent lodged a complaint. 3. On the side of the petitioner, he had examined D.W.1 and marked documents Ex.D.1. On the side of the respondent, he had examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked Exhibits P.1 to P.6. The trial court found the petitioner guilty for the offence under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.471 of 2023 Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay the cheque amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the respondent / complainant towards compensation within one month, in default in payment, to undergo 3 months Simple Imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred an appeal and the same was also dismissed, hence the petitioner has come up with the present Revision. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent failed to discharge the initial burden as contemplated under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Further, the alleged cheque was not issued for any legally enforceable debt and the respondent also failed to prove that the cheque was issued for any consideration. The legal notice was not served on the petitioner. Also, the respondent did not even file a suit for recovery of money so far. Eventhough the respondent miserably failed to prove the charge under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the trial court and the appellate court convicted the petitioner for offences under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Though the respondent averred that one Usha had received the notice by putting her signature, as if she is the wife of the petitioner, the petitioner's wife is one Kasturi and she was examined as D.W.1 and she deposed that she did not 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.471 of 2023 receive any notice from the respondent. The complaint was filed by the respondent to punish the petitioner for offence under Sections 138 ad 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act and the complaint was not filed for recovery of money. Therefore, there was absolutely no cause of action for filing the complaint and the respondent failed to comply the provisions as contemplated under Section 138(b) of Negotiable Instruments Act, thereby pleaded to allow the present Revision. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that after receipt of legal notice, the petitioner came to the house of the respondent and issued two pro-notes dated 20.07.2017 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- each towards discharge of debt, which was allegedly borrowed on 16.03.2016 and 18.07.2016. Further, even during the cross examination of P.W.2, who is the witness to the pronote, had categorically deposed that the pronotes were executed by the petitioner after receipt of statutory notice in his presence and also in the presence of one Mr.Sukumar in order to discharge the debt of Rs.10 Lakhs. The respondent had marked those pronotes before the trial court. Also, one Usha had received the legal notice issued by the respondent and the respondent did not know whether the said person is the wife of the 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.471 of 2023 petitioner or other family member of the petitioner. In fact, after receipt of legal notice, the petitioner himself came to the house of the respondent and executed pronotes in order to avoid the proceedings to be initiated for the offences under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. That apart, it was not suppressed by the respondent and he categorically averred in his complaint about the execution of pronotes. However, the petitioner failed to rebut the presumption and as such, the trial court and the appellate court rightly convicted the petitioner and the same does not warrant any interference by this Court.6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the documents placed on record carefully.7. It is relevant to point out that the respondent had lent a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as loan to the petitioner on 16.03.2016 and another sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on 18.07.2016. The petitioner agreed to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum, however, the petitioner failed to pay any interest and towards repayment of the entire principal amount, the petitioner issued cheque for a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs and it was presented for collection. However, it was returned for the reason 'funds insufficient'. The 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.471 of 2023 respondent caused legal notice on 03.07.2017 and the same was duly received and the acknowledgment card was also marked as Ex.P.4.8. On a perusal of Ex.P.4, acknowledgment card, it reveals that on behalf of the petitioner, one person had signed and received the legal notice on 04.07.2017, therefore, whether it was received by the petitioner's wife or the other person, is not an issue. After receipt of the said notice, the petitioner went to the house of the respondent and had executed two pronotes for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- each in favour of the respondent, therefore, it shows that the petitioner had knowledge about Ex.P.4, acknowledgment card for the legal notice. In order to avoid the proceedings to be initiated by the respondent for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the petitioner issued pronotes and both the pronotes were marked as Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6, therefore, the respondent has cause of action to lodge a complaint after complying with the provisions under Section 138(b) of Negotiable Instruments Act, thereby the respondent discharged initial burden, as contemplated under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.471 of 2023 9. The petitioner though examined D.W.1, but failed to rebut the presumption arisen under Sections 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act and D.W.1 was examined only to deny the receipt of legal notice. D.W.1 deposed that the signature found in Ex.P.4 is not her signature, therefore, the evidence of D.W.1 did not support the case of the petitioner to rebut the presumption. One of the witnesses of the pronotes, was examined as P.W.2 and he categorically deposed that the petitioner came to the house of the respondent and had executed pronotes that too after receipt of legal notice issued by the respondent to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Further, the petitioner did not deny the signature and issuance of cheques and he also did not deny the execution of pronotes, which was maked as Ex.P.5 and P.6, therefore, the trial court and the appellate court rightly convicted the petitioner for offences under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act and this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the Revision petition fails and the same is dismissed. 11.06.2025Index : Yes/NoInternet : Yes/NoSpeaking /Non-Speaking orderssd7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.471 of 2023 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.,ssdTo1. The Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai 2 The Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court II, Egmore, Allikulam, Chennai - 600 0033. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras Crl.R.C.No.471 of 202311.06.20258/8