Madras High Court
N.Venkatesan vs D.Nandakumar on 5 April, 2022
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.913 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 05.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.913 of 2021
N.Venkatesan ... Petitioner/
Appellant/
Accused
Vs.
D.Nandakumar ... Respondent/
Respondent/
Complainant
Prayer : This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for records and to set aside the judgment, dated
17.08.2020 passed in C.A.No.152 of 2018 on the file of the IV Additional District
and Sessions Court, Tirunelveli, confirming the judgment, dated 15.11.2018
passed in S.T.C.No.169 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court- IV,
Tirunelveli.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Selvan
For Respondent : No Appearance
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.913 of 2021
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed to set aside the judgment, dated
17.08.2020 passed in C.A.No.152 of 2018 on the file of the IV Additional District
and Sessions Court, Tirunelveli, in confirming the judgment, dated 15.11.2018
passed in S.T.C.No.169 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court- IV,
Tirunelveli.
2. The petitioner is an accused in the complaint by the respondent for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging
that on 06.02.2012, the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three
Lakhs only) as loan and assured that he would return the amount. In order to
repay the said amount, the petitioner issued a cheque, on 16.04.2012 for a sum of
Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only). It was presented for collection and
returned as dishonored for the reason of insufficient funds. Thereafter, the
respondent issued a legal notice as contemplated under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act and lodged the complaint.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.913 of 2021
3. On the side of the petitioner, P.W.1 was examined and marked Exs.P.1 to
P.6. On the side of the respondent, R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and marked
Exs.R.1 to R.3.
4. On perusal of the materials and oral evidence, the trial Court found that
the petitioner was guilty and also sentenced him to undergo 3 months simple
imprisonment. The trial Court also ordered the petitioner to pay a compensation
of a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) within a period of three
months from today, in favour of the respondent herein. Aggrieved by the same,
the petitioner preferred an appeal and the appellate Court dismissed the appeal
and confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent
has no source of income to lend a huge amount to the petitioner herein. He has
also not produced any income tax returns to show that the respondent has source
of income to lend money. Further, the mortgage deed and the receipt were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.913 of 2021
marked. For borrowal of a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) under
mortgage deed, the cheque was given as security. After retention of mortgage
deed, the respondent failed to return the cheque, which has been misused and
filed a complaint for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act.
6. A perusal of records revealed that the petitioner borrowed a sum of
Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) from the respondent on 06.02.2012 and
also signed blank papers in favour of the respondent herein. In support of this
contention, he also examined D.W.2. There is a corroboration between both
deposition. That apart, no person will leave the cheques which were handed over
the security at the time of borrowal of loan. After retention of mortgage and
payment of entire loan, according to the petitioner, the respondent failed to return
the cheques which were issued as security. Even then, the petitioner did not take
any steps to return the cheque after retention of mortgage and after settlement of
entire loan amount. In fact, the petitioner failed to make any settlement under
Section 315 Cr.P.C. Further, admittedly, the respondent had money transaction, in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.913 of 2021
which, the petitioner in order to repay the loan amount issued the cheque.
Therefore, the Court below rightly convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to
undergo 3 months simple imprisonment along with compensation of cheque
amount. Hence, the first appellate Court also confirmed the sentence and
conviction imposed by the petitioner and this Court finds no infirmity or illegality
in the order passed by the Court below. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case
is dismissed.
05.04.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
mga
To:-
1. The IV Additional District and Sessions Court,
Tirunelveli.
2. The Judicial Magistrate Court- IV,
Tirunelveli.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.913 of 2021
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.J
mga
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.913 of 2021
05.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
