✦ High Court of India · 18 Apr 2024

High Court · 2024

Case Details High Court of India · 18 Apr 2024

Court

High Court of India

Decided

18 Apr 2024

Bench

PRINCIPAL SESSIONS

Length

1,326 words

Acts & Sections

Code of Criminal Procedure §204 Code of Criminal Procedure §207 Code of Criminal Procedure §313

Crl.R.C.No.1242 of 2019IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 18.04.2024CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. HEMALATHACrl.R.C.No.1242 of 2019R.Suman... Petitioner vs.1.P.Ravi Son of Palanisamy No.28, Rangasamy Pillai Street Thiruchengode Town and Taluk Namakkal District Power Agent K.Prakash M/A 42 Son of K.S.Karuppannan No.36/37, Karuveppampatty Post Thiruchengode Taluk Namakkal District2.The Public Prosecutor Namakkal District... RespondentsPrayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, praying to set aside the judgement and orders dated 05.07.2019 passed in C.A.No.56 of 2017 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal confirming the judgment and orders dated 09.08.2017 Page 1 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1242 of 2019passed in S.T.C.No.218 of 2016 by the Judicial Magistrate (FTC), Thiruchengode. For Petitioner: Mr.D.BalachandranFor R1: Mr.S.ArthanareeswaranFor R2: Mr.S.Rajakumar Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by Ms.A.Shahana Fathima, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)ORDERChallenging the conviction and sentence passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal in C.A.No.56 of 2017, dated 05.07.2019, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate (FTC), Thiruchengode in S.T.C.No.218 of 2016, dated 09.08.2017, the present Criminal Revision case is filed by the accused.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the Trial Court and at appropriate places, their rank in the present criminal revision would also be indicated.3. The case of the 1st respondent/complainant in a nutshell is as Page 2 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1242 of 2019follows:-The revision petitioner/accused borrowed a sum of Rs.17,00,000/- to meet his urgent family expenses from the 1st respondent/complainant on 10.01.2016 and in order to discharge the said amount, the accused issued the following two cheques (Ex.P1 and Ex.P4) drawn on Axis Bank, Tiruchengode Branch:-Sl.No.DateCheque No.Amount in Rs.113.04.2016012322Rs.8,00,000/-218.04.2016012321Rs.9,00,000/-He also promised to repay the said amount together with interest within three months. When the cheques were presented by the complainant for collection on 13.04.2016 and 18.04.2016 through his bankers viz., Indian Overseas Bank, Tiruchengode Branch, both the cheques were returned on 14.04.2016 and 19.04.2016 for the reason "Funds Insufficient", as is seen from the cheque return memo (Ex.P3 and Ex.P6). Thereafter, the 1st respondent/complainant issued a legal notice dated 13.05.2016 (Ex.P7) to the revision petitioner/accused demanding the latter to pay the amount Page 3 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1242 of 2019due under the cheques (Ex.P1 and Ex.P4) within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. According to the complainant, though the revision petitioner/accused received the said notice on 14.05.2016, as is evidenced by the postal acknowledgement card (Ex.P8), he did not come forward to make good the payment and did not also send any reply.4. Therefore, the complainant filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Criminal Procedure Code before the Judicial Magistrate (FTC), Thiruchengode in S.T.C.No.218 of 2016 against the revision petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and issued summons to the revision petitioner/accused under Section 204 Cr.P.C. On appearance of the accused, the Judicial Magistrate furnished copies of the records to him under Section 207 Cr.P.C. When the revision petitioner/accused was questioned with regard to the substance of accusation made against him, he pleaded not guilty. Therefore, the case was posted for trial.Page 4 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1242 of 20195. On the side of the complainant, one K.Prakash was examined as PW.1 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 were marked. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, he denied of having committed any offence. On the side of the accused, Ex.D1 was marked. 6. The learned Judicial Magistrate, after analysing the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the accused for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 16 months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month, vide his judgement dated 09.08.2017.7. Aggrieved over the same, the revision petitioner/accused filed an appeal in C.A.No.56 of 2017 before the Principal Sessions Judge, Page 5 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1242 of 2019Namakkal. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, after analysing the oral and documentary evidence on record, concurred with the findings of the Trial Court and confirmed the conviction and sentence vide his judgement dated 05.07.2019, aggrieved over which, the present criminal revision case is filed.8. Mr.D.Balachandran, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contended that the revision petitioner issued the cheques only in favour of one Shanmugam and not to the present complainant. It is also his contention that there was a civil litigation between the revision petitioner's father and the complainant and these aspects have not at all been considered by both the Courts below. Therefore, he prayed for setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by both the Courts below. 9. At the outset, it may be observed that the accused admitted Page 6 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1242 of 2019his signatures on the cheques (Ex.P1 and Ex.P4). Once the signatures are admitted, there is a presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, unless the contrary is proved by the accused. 10. In the instant case, though the revision petitioner/accused received the statutory notice issued by the 1st respondent/complainant, he did not send any reply notice. The contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the cheques were issued only in favour of one Shanmugam and not in favour of the complainant was not substantiated by way of adducing acceptable evidence.11. Though an attempt was made by the revision petitioner before the Appellate Court that there was a civil dispute between his father and the complainant with regard to the sale of property of the revision petitioner's father, the same has not been substantiated. Infact, the Sale Agreement dated 30.12.2009 (Ex.R2) was executed by the 1st respondent/complainant in favour of one Thangavel. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner this property actually belonged Page 7 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1242 of 2019to the father of the revision petitioner and a Power of Attorney was executed by the father of the revision petitioner in favour of the 1st respondent/complainant only as a collateral security for the amount borrowed by him from the 1st respondent/complainant. 12. Though the revision petitioner marked a certified copy of the Sale Agreement dated 30.12.2009 (Ex.R2), did not mark the General Power of Attorney allegedly executed by his father. 13. As already observed, the revision petitioner had not established that his father's property was given as a security for the loan obtained by him from the 1st respondent/complainant. This is a case where concurrent findings are recorded by both the Courts below and this Court cannot act as a Second Appellate Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction, unless it is convincingly shown that the judgments passed by both the Courts below are perverse. Infact, both the Courts below, by well reasoned orders, had convicted and sentenced the accused and therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere with the same. Page 8 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1242 of 201914. In the result, (i) The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. (ii) The judgment dated 05.07.2019 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal in C.A.No.56 of 2017 and the judgment dated 09.08.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate (FTC), Thiruchengode in S.T.C.No.218 of 2016 are confirmed.(iii) The revision petitioner/accused shall surrender before the learned Judicial Magistrate (FTC), Thiruchengode, within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the Trial Court shall take steps to secure his presence for serving the remaining period of sentence.18.04.2024 Index: Yes / NoSpeaking order: Yes / NoNeutral Citation: Yes / NodmPage 9 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1242 of 2019R. HEMALATHA, J.dmTo1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal.2.The Judicial Magistrate (FTC), Thiruchengode. 3.The Public Prosecutor Namakkal District.Crl.R.C.No.1242 of 201918.04.2024Page 10 of 10

Find similar cases Start drafting free

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments

More cases under Code of Criminal Procedure