Madras High Court
Ramachandran vs Ravichandran on 8 August, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.646 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.08.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.R.C.No.646 of 2019
Ramachandran,
S/o.Dhanpal ... Petitioner/Accused
Versus
Ravichandran,
S/o.Kandasamy Gounder ... Respondent/Complainant
Prayer : Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, praying to set aside the Judgment dated 02.04.2019 passed
by III Additional District and Sessions Court, Kallakurichi in C.A.No.7 of 2018
confirming the judgment dated 22.01.2018 passed in C.C.No.214 of 2013 by
the III Fast Track Court Magistrate, Kallakurichi and to acquit the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sasikumar
Legal Aid Counsel
For Respondent : No Appearance
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the concurrent orders of
conviction for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.646 of 2019
2.The case of the complainant is that on 26.05.2006, the
petitioner/accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.3,20,000/- and in repayment
thereof, issued the subject matter cheque and the same was presented, which
was dishonored with an endorsement ''funds insufficient'' and thereafter, issuing
statutory notice, the complaint is filed.
3.After recording the sworn statement of the complainant, the case was
taken on file and summons was issued to the petitioner/accused. The
petitioner/accused upon appearance denied the allegations and stood trial. The
complainant was examined as P.W.1 and Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-6 were marked. Upon
being questioned about the material evidence on record and the incriminating
circumstances under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused denied the same as
false and denied that he issued the cheque. Thereafter, no evidence was let in on
behalf of the defence. Therefore, the Trial Court proceeded to hear the learned
counsel on either side and by a judgment dated 22.01.2018 found that the
accused had cross examined the complainant, but could not elicit any answer
favourable to him, no complaint was lodged against the complainant for
misusing the cheque, which was alleged to be given in favour of one
Murugadoss and neither the said Murugadoss was called in evidence nor he
adduced any further evidence. Therefore, except for few suggestions in the cross
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.646 of 2019
examination, which the complainant has withstood, there is no any attempt to
the rebut the presumption and therefore, held the accused as guilty of the
offence.
4.The Appellate Court after independently reappraising the evidence, held
that once the appellant admits the issue of cheque and the signature, there is a
presumption in favour of the complainant and the accused having been silent
after the receipt of the statutory notice and also having not let in positive
evidence to prove his defence and when the questions put to the complainant by
the defence have been denied by the complainant, confirmed the conviction and
sentence imposed by the Trial Court.
5.Before this Court in this revision, a conditional order was imposed.
Thereafter, there was no representation about the compliance of the conditional
order. There was no representation on behalf of the petitioner/accused for
several occasions and therefore, this Court had appointed a legal aid counsel to
represent the petitioner. The legal aid counsel taking this Court to the cross
examination of the complainant would submit that the accused had clearly
suggested that the cheque was issued in favour of one Murugadoss and the
answers of the complainant that he did not know the native place of the accused,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.646 of 2019
the residence of the accused, the designation of the accused in the Electricity
Board, etc., would clearly prove that the defence version that the cheque was
given only to one Murugadoss and the cheque is being misused in the name of
the complainant and therefore, would pray that this Court should accept the
defence of the accused.
6.I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel on
either side and perused the material records of the case.
7.I am unable to accept the contentions of the learned counsel for the
petitioner. Except for cross examining the accused by suggesting that the cheque
was given to one Murugadoss, not even further questions were asked to pursue
the defence and specifically no further evidence was let in when the complainant
denied the suggestions.
8.In that view of the matter, I am of the view that the accused had not
done anything to rebut the presumption to the level of preponderance of
probability and therefore, the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court
correctly rejected the case of the accused and convicted the accused and
imposed the sentence.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.646 of 2019
9.In view of the above, this Criminal Revision Case has no merits and the
same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is
dismissed as without any merits.
08.08.2022
Index : yes/no
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
sp
To
1.The III Additional District and Sessions Court, Kallakurichi.
2.The III Fast Track Court Magistrate, Kallakurichi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.646 of 2019
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.,
sp
Crl.R.C.No.646 of 2019
08.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
