Srinivasan vs T.Damodaran
2021 Latest Caselaw 24804 Mad

                                                                                  Crl.R.C.No.631 of 2016

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                     DATED : 16.12.2021

                                                            CORAM

                                   THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

                                                 Crl.R.C.No.631 of 2016

                     Srinivasan                                                  ... Petitioner

                                                             Vs

                     T.Damodaran                                                 ... Respondent

                     PRAYER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 read with

                     401 of Cr.P.C., against the Judgment passed in Crl.A.No.54 of 2013 dated

                     08.02.2016 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court at Hosur,

                     Krishnagiri District in confirming the conviction passed in Judgment dated

                     19.11.2013 in S.T.C.No.146 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate,

                     Fast Track Court at Hosur and sentencing the petitioner to undergo Six

                     months imprisonment under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,

                     and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- within a period of one month under

                     Section 357 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

                                    For Petitioner      :     Mr.R.Jayaprakash


                     1/8


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                   Crl.R.C.No.631 of 2016

                                       For Respondent    :     Mr.D.Shivakumaran

                                                         ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred challenging the

judgment of the learned the Additional District and Sessions Court at Hosur,

Krishnagiri District, dated 08.02.2016 made in Crl.A.No.54 of 2013,

confirming the Judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court

at Hosur dated 19.11.2013 passed in S.T.C.No.146 of 2012.

2. This case arose out of a private complaint given by the

respondent/complainant on the allegations that the cheque issued by the

petitioner for a sum of Rs.1,00,0000/- dated 25.08.2012 got dishonoured on

04.09.2012 for ''Insufficient Funds'. The amount involved in the cheque is

said to be the loan availed by the petitioner/accused. After issuing statutory

notice and complying with the legal mandates, the complainant has filed the

private complaint. After taking the complaint on file, the accused was

questioned and he pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried.

3. During the course of trial, on the side of the prosecution, one

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.631 of 2016

witness was examined as PW1 and Exs.P1 to P5 were marked. On the side of

defence, three witness were examined as DW1 to DW3 and one document

was marked as Ex.D1.

4. After considering both oral and documentary evidence adduced on

the side of the prosecution and on the side of the defence, the learned trial

Judge found the accused guilty by convicting and sentencing the petitioner to

undergo Six months imprisonment under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- within a period of

one month under Section 357 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

5. The appeal preferred by the accused challenging the same in

Crl.A.No.54 of 2013, was dismissed, confirming the judgment of the trial

Court. Aggrieved by that, he preferred Criminal Revision Case before this

Court.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel

for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.631 of 2016

7. Point for consideration:

Whether the conviction and sentence of the accused for the offence under Sections 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and compensation awarded under Section 357 of Cr.P.C., by the learned Sessions Judge basing on the materials available on record, is fair and proper?

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cheque in

question was not issued by the petitioner for enforcing the debt or liability.

The son of the accused alone had availed a loan of Rs.20,000/- from the

complainant and he repaid the same; however, the complainant has misused

the cheque for the purpose of this case.

9. The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that

the alleged loan amount availed by the son of the accused has nothing to do

with this case transaction between the petitioner/accused and the

respondent/complainant. The Courts below have rightly given the benefit of

initial presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.631 of 2016

favour of the complainant. Since the accused has not proved the contrary, the

revision case has to be dismissed.

10. The signature of the cheque is not disputed. The one and only

contention of the petitioner/accused is that the cheque was not issued for

discharging any debt or liability and it was given to the complainant only for

the purpose of security for the loan availed by his son. When the execution of

the cheque is not denied as per Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, the initial presumption has to be taken in favour of the

holder of the cheque, that the cheque was issued for a legally dischargeable

debt only. But, the initial presumption can be rebutted by the accused by

giving contrary proof. In the case on hand, execution of the cheque is not in

dispute.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that

Ex.D1 account note which is maintained to repay the loan availed by the son

of the accused, would serve as a rebuttal proof. Admittedly, Ex.D1 is related

to the alleged loan availed by the son of the accused from the complainant

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.631 of 2016

and it would show that this impugned cheque has been issued by the

petitioner/accused as security or otherwise.

12. The case of the petitioner/accused is that the respondent /

complainant did not have any financial problem to lend the sum of

Rs.1,00,000/-. Since the accused has not produced any rebuttal proof by

adducing evidence or exposed the improbabilities and in the case of the

complainant, the Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence on

record and found the accused guilty of the offence under Section138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act and also under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. I do not

find any infirmity or illegality in the judgment of the Courts below and the

same does not warrant any interference by this Court.

13. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed and the

judgment of the learned the Additional District and Sessions Court at Hosur,

Krishnagiri District, dated 08.02.2016 passed in Crl.A.No.54 of 2013 is

confirmed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.631 of 2016

14. Since the petitioner/accused is on bail, the Trial Court is directed to

secure his custody to undergo the remaining sentence, if any. The

petitioner/accused is directed to pay the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the

respondent/complainant as directed by the Courts below.

16.12.2021

Index:yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No ssn

To

1. The Additional District and Sessions Court, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.

2. The Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Hosur.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.631 of 2016

R.N.MANJULA, J., ssn

Crl.R.C.No.631 of 2016

16.12.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis