Santhosh Raja vs Senthil
2021 Latest Caselaw 23013 Mad

                                                                              Crl.R.C.No.242 of 2016

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                     Dated : 24.11.2021

                                                         CORAM :

                                  THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

                                                 Crl.R.C.No.242 of 2016


                     Santhosh Raja                                                 .. Petitioner

                                                              Vs.

                     Senthil                                                       .. Respondent

                     PRAYER : Criminal Revision has been filed under sections 397 read
                     with 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the Judgment dated
                     25.07.2014 in Summary Trial Case No.16 of 2013 passed by the Judicial
                     Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Omalur and confirmed by judgment dated
                     11.01.2016 in C.A.No.102 of 2014 on the file of the 2 nd Additional
                     District and Sessions Court, Salem.

                                    For Petitioner       :      Mr.B.Vijayakumar

                                    For Respondent       :      Mr.R.Murugabharathi

                                                             ORDER

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is

not able to contact the petitioner, since he does not response to him. He

reported no instructions.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.242 of 2016

2. It is submitted that even while the criminal revision case

was pending, a part of the cheque amount was paid by the petitioner to

the respondent. The grounds on which the revision case has been filed is

that the respondent did not have any means to lend the loan amount of

Rs.3,90,000/- as claimed by him.

3. The fact remains that he is admitted his own liability and

chosen to pay the payments to the respondent. It is also seen from the

records that the respondent did not deny the execution of the impugned

cheques. Once the execution is admitted, the natural corollary is to give

the presumption in favour of the complainant that the cheque was issued

only in pursuance of legally enforceable debt. The Courts below are

rightly proceeded as per law in right perspective and found the accused

guilty for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

The initial presumption that the petitioner/accused has taken

Rs.3,90,000/- as loan will become a conclusive proof, if the accused did

not rebut the same.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.242 of 2016

4. Therefore, I could not find any probable defence or

preponderance of probabilities in favour of the petitioner/accused that the

judgment of such does not warrant any interference.

5. In the result, the criminal revision case is dismissed.

However, it is open to the parties to continue the settlement process, if

any, in continuation of the part payment already made by the petitioner to

the respondent.

24.11.2021 (R.N.M.J) rpl

To

1. The 2nd Additional District and Sessions Court, Salem.

2.Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Omalur.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.242 of 2016

R.N. MANJULA, J.

rpl

Crl.R.C.No.242 of 2016

24.11.2021

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