Madras High Court
M. Beula Rani vs M/S.Bloom Electronics (P) Ltd on 28 October, 2021
Crl.R.C.No.431 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.10.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
Crl.R.C.No.431 of 2015
and
M.P.No.2 of 2015
M. Beula Rani .. Petitioner
Vs.
M/s.Bloom Electronics (P) Ltd.,
Represented by its Accountant
M. Raju .. Respondent
Prayer : Petition filed under Section 397 & 401 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, to call for the records in C.A.No.114 of 2013 on the file of learned V
Additional District Sessions Judge, Coimbatore and set aside the order dated
09.02.2015 confirming the conviction and the sentence passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Level-II, Coimbatore in
STC.No.201 of 2012 (STC.670/09-JM No.7, Coimbatore) by a judgment
dated 29.07.2013.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.431 of 2015
For Petitioner : Mr. H.Rajasekar
For Respondent : Mr. R. Babu
ORDER
The matter is heard through "Video Conference".
2. Convicted accused is the revision petitioner herein.
3. The respondent herein filed complaint under Section 200 of
Cr.P.C., to prosecute the accused for the offence under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act.
4. This criminal revision petition is filed against the order passed
by V Additional District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore in C.A.No.114 of
2013 by an order dated 09.02.2015, confirming the conviction under Section
138 of Negotiable Instruments Act rendered by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Level-II, Coimbatore, STC.No.201 of 2012
(STC.670/09-JM No.7, Coimbatore) dated 29.07.2013 and affirming the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.431 of 2015
sentence of Simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.2,000/- in
default, shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months.
5. The brief facts of this case is that the petitioner is a customer of
the respondent who is a dealer in computer accessories having credit
dealings with the respondent. As per the accounts maintained by the
respondent in the regular course of business the petitioner is liable to pay a
sum of Rs.6,30,458/-. As such the petitioner has issued four cheques of
Rs.50,000/- each totalling a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and the respondent
presented the cheques on 04.06.2009 which was returned by the drawer's
bank due to insufficient funds in the drawer's account. The respondent
issued the statutory notice on 02.07.2009 and sent a reply contending that at
the time of purchase of computer accessories, the petitioner used to give
cheques and get them back after payment of the amount. The amount for
the cheque was already paid to the collection agent of the respondent
company and when the cheque was asked to be returned, it was told by the
respondent company that the same would be returned the cheques was
issued as security and was not intended to be deposited in bank.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.431 of 2015
6. The respondent was examined as the sole witness as P.W.1 and
marked Exs.P1 to P16. The petitioner examined herself as D.W.1. After
going through the evidence on record the learned trial Magistrate held the
petitioner guilty as complained of under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act and sentenced the petitioner and the appellate Court also
maintained the conviction and the sentence and hence, the revision.
7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend
that the trial Court has committed an error in giving the statutory
presumption in favour of the respondent.
8. Heard, the learned counsel for the respondent.
9. On perusal of the documents filed by the respondent, it is seen
that the minutes extract and authorisation letter are Ex.P1. The ledger
account of the complainant company for the period 01.04.2009 to
31.03.2009 is Ex.P2 and another ledger account of the complainant
company for the period 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009. The petitioner has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.431 of 2015
issued four cheques of Rs.50,000/- each totalling a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- of
IDBI Bank is Exs.P4 to P7. Return memos dated 04.06.2009 are marked as
Exs.P8 to P11. Debit advice is marked as Ex.P12, Legal notice is marked as
Ex.P13, Acknowledgment is marked as Ex.P14, Reply notice is marked as
Ex.P15 and another legal notice is marked as Ex.P16. With this
complainant side evidence was closed.
10. During the cross examination of P.W.1, there is a signature in
the cheque and issuance of cheque by the revision petitioner are not disputed
and hence, both the Courts below has rightly come to the conclusion that the
respondent/private complainant is entitled to statutory presumption under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act including the existence of legally
enforceable debt.
11. The suggestive case of the defence is that it is an usual process
to give cheques and get them back after payment of the amount and the
cheques would be returned to the accused. However, even after payment of
cash, the petition-cheque was not returned and when it was requested, they
said that the same would be returned afterwards. However, without doing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.431 of 2015
so, notice has been sent by complainant company which returned in filing by
case under Negotiable Instruments Act.
12. Admittedly, D.W.1, would state that the cheque was issued for
the proprietrix of the complainant company, it was duly signed and these
facts are not disputed. Exs.P2 & P3 are the ledger books pertaining to the
period 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2009 and 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009, to show
that the respondent/accused has taken goods from the private complainant
and in due of Rs.2,00,000/- and hence, the existing legally enforceable debt
is established and hence, both the Courts below has rejected the suggestive
case of the defence.
13. After perusing the evidence of D.W.1, though, they says that
they have paid the amount, no receipt has been found.
14. On the contrary, the private complainant has filed Exs.P2 and
P3 to show the transaction between the parties and the amount due by the
revision petitioner/accused.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.431 of 2015
15. It is mentioned in the regular course of business within Section
35 of Indian Evidence Act and hence, I find that the private complainant has
proved the transaction between the parties and as per Exs.P2 and P3, it is
clearly demonstrates the pre-existence of legal enforceable debt and cheques
have been issued and the cheques have been issued from the account of the
revision petitioner/accused and signature has not been disputed and hence, I
find that on the cheques having been returned as insufficient funds, as could
be seen from Ex.P10 & Ex.P11/Return memos and legal notice have been
issued. The conviction passed by both the Courts below does not warrant
any interference. Accordingly, the order of conviction is hereby by
confirmed.
16. On the point of quantum of sentence, both the parties heard.
17. Taking into consideration, the money involved in the amount, I
find that the period of sentence be reduced from six months to three months
and the fine amount as awarded by the trial Court is hereby confirmed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.431 of 2015
18. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is partly allowed to the
limited extent as indicated above. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
28.10.2021
AT
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.431 of 2015
To
1.The V Additional District Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.
2.The learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Level-II,
Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.431 of 2015
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN,J.,
AT
Crl.R.C.No.431 of 2015 and
M.P.No.2 of 2015
28.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
