Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 14390 Mad
Judgement Date : 12 August, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.136 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 12.08.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Crl.R.C.No.136 of 2017
Crl.M.P.No.1492 of 2017
P.Mylsamy ... Petitioner
Vs
M/s.Vintech Automation ... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401
Crl.P.C., to aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the III
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in C.A.No.10 of 2015
on 04.11.2016 and thereby confirming the order of conviction and sentence
passed by the Judicial Magistrate/Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level II
Coimbatore in C.C.No.466 of 2013 on 22.12.2014 convicting the
petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and for
sentencing him to under 1 year simple imprisonment and imposing a fine
of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Jayachandran
For Respondent: No Appearance
1/ 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.136 of 2017
ORDER
This revision arises against the judgment of the learned III
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, passed in
C.A.No.10/2015 on 04.11.2016.
2. The petitioner faced prosecution for offence under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C.No.466/2013 on the file of the
learned Judicial Magistrate/Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level II,
Coimbatore. The prosecution case was that the petitioner issued three
cheques towards discharge of liability arising at the invoices raised by the
respondent for the goods supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner issued
three post dated cheques a total sum of Rs.4,00,114/- (Rupees Four Lakhs
One Hundred and Fourteen only) to the respondent pertaining to the
business transactions between the petitioner and the respondent. The
complainant presented the cheques for collection on 12.06.2013 and upon
the same having returned for the reason "funds insufficient", followed the
procedure under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2/ 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.136 of 2017
3. Before the trial Court, the respondent examined M.Velumani as
P.W.1 and marked 19 exhibits. None were examined on behalf of the
defence and no exhibits were marked on the side of the petitioner.
4. On appreciation of evidence, the trial Court entered upon a
finding of conviction and sentenced the petitioner to undergo one year SI
and imposed a fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) in default
to suffer three months SI. Against the same, the petitioner moved a Appeal
in C.A.No.10/2015, which came to be dismissed by the learned
III- Additional District Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.
5. Heard, Mr.V.Jayachandran learned counsel for the petitioner and
no representation for the respondent.
6. On perusal of the judgement of the courts below, we find that the
respondent had established the foundational facts required for drawing the
presumption under section 139 of the NI Act. The Petitioner has not
dislodged the said presumption either by cross examination or by adducing
any evidence on his side. The defence of the petitioner that the cheque was
not issued in discharge of debt or liability to the respondent has not been
established by the petitioner. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to
interfere with the findings of the Courts below.
3/ 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.136 of 2017
7.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner was unable to make payment in view of his poor financial
condition and prayed for modification of sentence.
8.This Court is of the view that the sentence imposed on the
petitioner can be modified, keeping in mind that the proceedings under
Section 138 of NI Act is primarily compensatory in nature than being
punitive as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in several decisions including
in K.A.Abbas H.S.A vs. Sabu Joseph and another reported in (2010) 6
SCC 230 and in Meters and Instruments Private Limited and Another vs.
Kanchan Mehta reported in (2018) 1 SCC 560.
9.Accordingly, this Court while confirming the finding of conviction
recorded by the Court's below alters the sentence imposed on the petitioner
to one directing him to pay a fine of Rs.4,60,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs
Sixty Thousand only). In the event of the petitioner failing to do so, he
shall suffer three months S.I. Since the respondent has suffered a loss on
account of the dishonour of the cheque, this Court is of the view that a
sum of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) shall be
paid to the respondent from the fine recovered from the petitioner.
4/ 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.136 of 2017
10.With the above directions, Criminal Revision is disposed of.
Consequently, the connected misellaneous petition is closed.
12.08.2022
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/ No Speaking order / Non Speaking order dk
To
1.III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.
2. Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court at Magistrate level II, Coimbatore
5/ 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.136 of 2017
SUNDER MOHAN,J.
dk
Crl.R.C.No.136 of 2017
12.08.2022
6/ 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!