Madras High Court

M/S.National Fire Armor vs R.Somarajan on 16 December, 2021

                                                                                   Crl.R.C.No.608 of 2017



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED: 16.12.2021

                                                         CORAM:

                                     THE HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

                                                Crl.R.C.No.608 of 2017

                  M/s.National Fire Armor,
                  Rep.by its Partner Mr.A.S.Menon
                  No.41-A, Kutty Street,
                  Nungambakkam,
                  Chennai-600 034.                                                   ... Petitioner
                                                          Vs.

                  R.Somarajan,
                  Prop.M/s.Karthik Wood Industries.                                ... Respondent

                             Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397(1) and 401 Cr.P.C
                  praying to set aside the judgment of the learned XVII Additional District and
                  Sessions Judge, Chennai dated 26.08.2016 in C.A.No.14 of 2016 modifying
                  the sentence imposed by the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, FTC-I, Chennai
                  in C.C.No.2261 of 2007 dated 29.12.2015.


                                        For Petitioner     : Mr.Manoj Sreevalsan
                                        For Respondent     : Mr.C.Russelraj
                                                          ***

                                                         ORDER

The Criminal Revision Case has been preferred challenging the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.608 of 2017

judgment of the learned XVII Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Chennai, dated 26.08.2016 made in C.A.No.14 of 2016.

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

petitioner/complainant on the allegation that the cheque issued by the

respondent for a sum of Rs.25,000/- dated 09.07.2003, for discharge of

liability owed by him and it was returned as “Insufficient Funds” on

06.10.2003. After issuing statutory pre suit notice and after complying the

legal mandates, the complainant has filed the complaint against the accused

for committing the offence under Section 138 r/w 142 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act (hereinafter referred as N.I.Act). The case was taken on file

by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court, FTC-I, Chennai in

C.C.No.2261 of 2007 and the trial was conducted.

3. On the side of the complainant, 2 witnesses were examined as

PW.1 and PW.2 and 7 documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7. On the

side of the accused, he himself examined as DW.1 and 5 documents were

marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D5.

4. After the conclusion of the trial and on consideration of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.608 of 2017

materials available on record, the learned trial Judge found the accused guilty

under Section 138 of N.I.Act, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple

imprisonment for 6 months and awarded an amount equal to the cheque

amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation payable to the complainant within a

period of 2 months.

5. Against the conviction, the accused has filed an appeal in

C.A.No.14 of 2016, before the learned XVII Additional Judge, City Civil

Court, Chennai and it was dismissed on 26.08.2016. However the sentence

was modified by imposing a fine of Rs.25,000/-; in default to undergo 2

months simple imprisonment and also awarding compensation of Rs.25,000/-

to the complainant. Aggrieved over that the petitioner/complainant has

preferred this Criminal Revision Case.

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

the learned counsel for the respondent/accused.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/complainant

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.608 of 2017

submitted that the learned appellate judge has not given any reason to the

reduction of punishment from imprisonment to mere fine and in the offence of

this nature such lenience should not be shown. In support of his contention, he

cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India rendered in

H.Pukhraj Vs. D.Parasmal reported in MANU/SC/0992/2014, which reads

as under:

“4. In Suganthi Suresh Kumar V.

Jagadeeshan, MANU/SC/0037/2002 : 2002 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 502 : (2002) 2 SCC 420, this Court was considering the propriety of inadequate sentence imposed by Courts on the accused charged under Section 138 of the NI Act. This Court expressed displeasure about Courts imposing a flea- bite sentence on the accused. Following paragraph from the said judgment could be quoted:

“12. The total amount covered by the cheques involved in the present two cases was Rs.4,50,000/-. There is no case for the respondent that the said amount had been paid either during the pendency of the cases before the trial Court or revision before the High Court or this Court. It the amounts had been paid to the complainant there perhaps would have been justification for imposing a flee-bite sentence as had been chosen by the trial Court. But in a case where the amount covered by the cheque remained unpaid, it should be the look out of the trial Magistrates that

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.608 of 2017

the sentence for the offence under Section 138 should be of such a nature as to give proper effect to the object of the legislation. No drawer of the cheque can be allowed to take dishonour of the cheque issued by him light heartedly. The very object of enactment of provisions like 138 of the Act would stand defeated if the sentence is of the nature passed by the trial Magistrate. It is a different matter if the accused paid the amount at least during the pendency of the case””

8. The learned counsel for the respondent/accused submitted that

the learned first appellate Judge had taken into consideration the lesser

amount involved in the cheque and chosen to impose a fine amount equal to

that of the cheque as compensation. No doubt, the Court ought to have taken

serious view and imposed fine amount and sentence. In the case in hand the

cheque was issued to discharge a liability of Rs.25,000/- only. The learned

appellate Judge did not modify the finding of the learned trial Judge and

confirmed the guilt of the accused. However some lenient view was shown in

imposing the punishment for non payment of fine, which would immediately

attract 2 months S.I. Apart from this, the respondent is also pushed to pay a

compensation of Rs.25,000/-.