Madras High Court
M/S.Orion Water Treatment ... vs N.Jayaprakash on 1 August, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.503 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01..08..2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Criminal Revision Case No.503 of 2019
1.M/s.Orion Water Treatment Private Limited
2.M.Baskar,
Son of Mookan
Director of M/s.Orion Water Treatment Private Limited,
3.M.Sathishkumar,
Son of Mookan,
Director of M/s.Orion Water Treatment Private Limited,
S.No.1436, Old No.852,
V.G.P.Ramanujam Town-Part-II,
Opp. To St. Joseph School,
Sriperumbudur Village and Taluk,
Kanchipuram District, PIN 602 105.
... Petitioners
-Versus-
N.Jayaprakash,
Son of N.Raghu
... Respondent
Prayer:- Revision filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, praying to call for the records relating to judgment in
Crl.A.No.89 of 2018 dated 18.03.2019 on the file of the III Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur at Poonamallee in confirming the judgment and
sentence dated 21.05.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track
Court (Magisterial Level-II), Poonamallee, in S.T.C.No.99 of 2017 and set aside
1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.503 of 2019
the same as unlawful and against weightage of evidence.
For Revision Petitioner(s) : Mr.S.Marshal
For Respondent : Mr.V.Suryanarayana Reddy
ORDER
This revision has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the concurrent
findings of conviction for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 and the sentence thereof.
2. The 1st petitioner/A1 company was convicted by the trial court for the
offence under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced to pay a compensation of
Rs.3,18,000/- while the other petitioners/A2 and A3, who were directors of A1
company, were convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act and
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 12 months each. The
compensation awarded was ordered to be paid within a period of four months
from the date of judgment and in default of the same, A2 and A3 were directed to
undergo simple imprisonment for four weeks.
3. According to the respondent/complainant, the petitioners/accused were
the tenant under him and there were arrears of rent and there was also
discrepancy over the payment of arrears to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and there were
2 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.503 of 2019
electricity bills which were pending and also non deposit of TDS amount.
Therefore, the complainant and the accused sat together, negotiated and arrived
at a sum of Rs.3,18,500/-. Accordingly, a cheque was issued by the accused. But,
two days prior to the presentation of the cheque, the petitioner/accused issued an
Email instructing the bank to stop the payment by stating that a sum of
Rs.50,000/- seems to have already been paid as per their accounts and they have
also further disputed that in the months of October, 2015 to December, 2015,
there were heavy rains and they were unable to operate their business in the
tenanted premises. On the face of it, the said defence appears to be frivolous as
even then the petitioners/accused did not come forward to say what is the correct
amount due and did not offer to pay any amount. Therefore the Trial Court and
the Appellate Court taking into consideration the same and considering the fact
that after negotiation the petitioners and respondents have arrived at the cheque
amount, found the petitioners/accused guilty, after appreciation of the evidence.
4. Before this court also, the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused
taking this court through the cross examination of the complainant pointed out
that the complainant was not even sure of when the petitioners/accused had
vacated the premises whether it was in the month of June or October and was
3 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.503 of 2019
also not sure about the details even in respect of the TDS amount and thus the
case of the respondent/complainant has become doubtful. Therefore, the Trial
Court out to have acquitted the petitioners/accused.
5. I have considered the said submissions. But, however, on a careful
perusal of the entire evidence of the complainant, it is clear that taking into
account the various factors, ultimately a sum of Rs.3,18,500/- was arrived at as
the balance due and accordingly, the cheque was issued. Therefore, I am of the
view that the trial court as well as the appellate court have correctly held that the
cheque was issued for a legally enforceable liability and the same having been
dishonored, the petitioners/accused are liable to be convicted.
6. In view thereof, finding no merits, the criminal revision case is
dismissed and the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence of both the
courts below are confirmed.
Index : yes/no 01..08..2022
Internet : yes/no
Speaking / Non speaking Order
kmk
4 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.503 of 2019
To
1.The III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur at Poonamallee,
Tiruvallur District.
2.The Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level-II), Poonamallee,
Tiruvallur District.
5 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.503 of 2019
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY.J.,
kmk
Crl.R.C.No.503 of 2019
01..08..2022
6 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
