Madras High Court
Balathandayutham vs L.Sakthivel on 22 June, 2021
Crl.R.C.No.23 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
Crl.R.C.No.23 of 2015
Balathandayutham ... Petitioner
.. Vs ..
L.Sakthivel ....Respondent
Prayer :- Criminal Revision filed under 397 and 401 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, to call for the records pertaining to the order dated
28.01.2014 in C.A.No.39 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge,
Namakkal by confirming the judgment and conviction dated 23.08.2013 on
the file of learned Judicial Magistrate-FTC, Tiruchengodu in S.T.C.No.22/13
and set aside the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sairaman
For Respondent : Mr.R.Marudhachalamurthy
ORDER
The respondent herein filed S.T.C.No.22/2013 before the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Tiruchengode alleging that on
01.09.2012 the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy
Five Thousand only) from the complainant and to discharge the same, the
accused on 11.09.2012 issued a cheque in favour of the complainant bearing
Cheque No.013744 drawn on Indian Bank, Kumbakonam and the accused
1 of 4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.23 of 2015
filled up the cheque in front of the complainant and signed and given to the
complainant and the complainant presented the same for collection on
11.09.2012 through his Bank, Indian Overseas Bank, Periyamanali Branch and
the same was returned to the complainant on 12.10.2012 as "Funds
Insufficient" and then the complainant issued a Registered Legal Notice to
accused on 03.11.2012 and the same was received by the accused but the
accused neither paid the amount nor send any reply. Hence, the complaint.
2. After trial, the Magistrate Court convicted the revision
petitioner herein and also convicted sentence to undergo 3 months
imprisonment that with fine of Rs.5,000/-. The Lower Appellate Court in
C.A.No.39/2013 has confirmed the conviction and sentence and hence the
revision petition.
3. From the docket entry, I find that a conditional order of
deposit of 50% namely Rs.37,500/- and the same is complied with.
Subsequently, an another amount of Rs.37,500/- is also paid by the
respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner based upon
the payment could contend that the sentence may be accordingly modified.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent could contend that
cheque is of the year 2012 and hence he seeks the sentence as a doubled
payment.
2 of 4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.23 of 2015
6. After perusing the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the
evidence of Ex.P3 Written Memo and Ex.P4 Written Memo along with Ex.D1-
Indian Bank Account Statement of the complainant, I find that the conviction
is appropriate. However taking note of the fact that the entire cheque amount
has already been paid. The sentence is modified to the cheque amount and
since the said amount has already been paid, I find that the revision petition
may be set at liberty the bail bond executed shall stands vacated.
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed-in-part
to the limited extent indicated above.
14.06.2021
nvi
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
To
1. The Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal
2. The Judicial Magistrate-FTC, Tiruchengodu
3 of 4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.23 of 2015
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN,J.,
nvi
Crl.R.C.No.23 of 2015
22.06.2021
4 of 4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
