High Court · 2025

Crl.R.C.No.2245 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 07.07.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.R.C.No.2245 of 20241.P.Murugesan2.M.Hemalatha.....PetitionersVs.D.Kannan.....RespondentPRAYER: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 438 of BNSS, praying to set aside the order passed in CA.No.91 of 2023 dated 27.09.2024 on the file of the XIX Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai confirming the order passed in CC.No.3088 of 2013 dated 13.07.2022 on the file of the Fast Track Court No.IV, Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.For Petitioners : Mr.S.F.Mohamed YousufFor Respondent : Mr.R.C.ManoharanPage 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.2245 of 2024ORDERThis criminal revision case has been preferred against the judgment passed in CA.No.91 of 2023 dated 27.09.2024 on the file of the XIX Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai, thereby confirming the judgment passed in CC.No.3088 of 2013 dated 13.07.2022 on the file of the Fast Track Court No.IV, Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. 2.The first petitioner is an authorized signatory and the second petitioner is the Proprietor of Sri.Balaji Dhall Mill. The respondent/complainant is doing dhall business. The respondent lodged complaint against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act alleging that the petitioners had purchased dhall from the respondent on various dates under proper invoices. Towards payment for the purchase of dhall, the petitioners had issued separate cheques for each purchase. All the cheques were presented for collection. However, the same were returned dishonoured for the reason 'account closed'. For the statutory notice issued by the respondent, the petitioners, without repaying the amount, issued an evasive reply. Hence, the respondent lodged complaint and the same was taken cognizance by the trial court. Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.2245 of 20243.On the side of the respondent, PW1 was examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P15 were marked. However, on the side of the petitioners, no one was examined and no documents were marked. On perusal of oral and documentary evidences, the trial court found the petitioners guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act and the petitioners were sentenced to undergo three months imprisonment. Further, the petitioners were ordered to pay compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred appeal and the same was dismissed by confirming the order of conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. Further, the respondent preferred appeal, which was partly allowed, thereby the sentence was increased to 1 year imprisonment and the prayer for enhancement of compensation was declined. Aggrieved by the judgment of the appellate court passed in the appeal filed by the accused, this criminal revision case has been filed.4.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that after the period of limitation, the complainant filled up the cheques and presented the same for collection. The petitioners did not issue any cheque for purchase of dhall from the respondent. The cheques were issued as security purpose for the business transaction between them. Even after repayment of the entire amount for the purchase of dhall, the cheques which were issued as security, had been Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.2245 of 2024misused and proceedings under Section 138 of NI Act was initiated. He further submitted that no prudent person would wait such a long time from the date of supply of dhall without asking for payments. The respondent failed to discharge his initial burden to prove the offence under Section 138 of NI Act. However, both the courts below convicted the petitioners without considering the above facts and circumstances of the cases. Further, when the petitioners categorically rebutted the presumption, the respondent ought to have proved that the cheques were issued for illegally enforceable debts. 5.Heard, the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused, all the materials placed before this Court.6.On perusal of records, it is revealed that the respondent supplied dhall under various invoices to the petitioners and towards repayment of the amount for the purchase of dhall, the petitioners issued separate cheques for each invoice. All the cheques were presented for collection. However, all were returned for the reason ‘account closed’. Therefore, after closing the account, the petitioners cleverly issued cheques for purchase of dhall. Further, the petitioners did not deny the signatures or the issuance of the cheques. Further, the respondent marked the invoices concerned to prove the purchases of dhall Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.2245 of 2024by the petitioners. Admittedly, dhall was purchased on credit basis in lumpsum and the petitioners issued cheques to pay the amount for the purchase of dhall. On one hand, the petitioners had taken stand that the cheques were issued as security for the purchase of dhall, and on the other hand, they made statements under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. that the cheques were obtained by coercion. Therefore, the petitioners failed to rebut the presumption in the manner known to law. As such, the trial court rightly convicted the petitioners and the appellate court rightly confirmation the said conviction. 7.However, the learned counsel for the petitioners requested that if the petitioners settle the cheque amounts, the sentences may be set aside. Considering the said submission, this Court is inclined to allow the criminal revision case on a condition. 8.Accordingly, this criminal revision case is allowed and the judgment passed in CA.No.91 of 2023 dated 27.09.2024 on the file of the XIX Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai and the judgment passed in CC.No.3088 of 2013 dated 13.07.2022 on the file of the Fast Track Court No.IV, Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai are set aside on condition that the petitioners shall pay the entire cheque amounts to the respondent on or Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.2245 of 2024before 04.08.2025, failing which the present order of this Court shall stand automatically cancelled and thereafter, the respondent shall be at liberty to take appropriate steps to secure the petitioner to undergo the sentence imposed by the trial court and the appellate court. 07.07.2025Index: Yes/No(1/6) Neutral citation: Yes/NoSpeaking/non-speaking orderlokPage 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.2245 of 2024To1.The XIX Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai 2.The Fast Track Court No.IV, Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town,Chennai. Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.2245 of 2024G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.lokCrl.R.C.No.2245 of 202407.07.2025(1/6)Page 8 of 8