Balu vs Lip Marketing Rep. By Ramesh Rai
2022 Latest Caselaw 528 Mad

                                                                                       Crl.R.C.No.624 of 2014

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                     DATED : 10.01.2022

                                           CORAM :
                      THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
                                                    Crl.R.C.No.624 of 2014

                Balu                                                          .. Petitioner

                                                           Versus

                LIP Marketing rep. by Ramesh Rai                                    .. Respondent

                Prayer: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C.,

                to call for the records of the case in C.A.No.40 of 2010 on the file of the

                learned Additional District Judge, Chengalpattu, dated 14.08.2012, confirming

                the conviction and sentence made in C.C.No.471 of 2008, dated 10.06.2010 on

                the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur and set aside the same and

                acquit the appellant.

                                   For Petitioner      : Mr.S.Janarathanam

                                   For Respondent      : Mr.C.Ruban D Silva

                                                     ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case in Crl.R.C.No.624 of 2014 is filed by the

petitioner/accused, aggrieved by the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate,

Alandur, dated 10.06.2010 in C.C.No.471 of 2008, thereby, convicting the

petitioner for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.624 of 2014

and imposing a sentence of six months Simple Imprisonment and a fine of

Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, one month Simple Imprisonment

and the judgment of the learned I Additional District Judge, Chengalpattu,

dated 14.08.2012 in Crl.A.No.40 of 2010, thereby, dismissing the appeal and

confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court.

2. This is a case on private complaint. On 08.04.2008, the

respondent/complainant filed a complaint under Section 200 of Code of

Criminal Procedure, complaining an offence under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act stating that for supply of the machinery, more

specifically Flex Digital Machine Model Space Jet Printer for a total price of

Rs.14,70,000/- and on the same day, the accused paid advance amount of

Rs.8,50,000/- and for the balance sum, he issued six post dated cheques. As a

matter of fact, Ex.P-1, agreement entered into at the time of delivery

categorically makes clear about the total sale price and the amount received and

balance of Rs.6,05,000/- payable and the handing over of six post dated

cheques by the accused.

3. It is the further case of the complainant that on due date, the first

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.624 of 2014

cheque given by the petitioner/accused, was deposited by them for collection,

which returned dishonoured. The complainant issued statutory notice calling

for the accused to pay the amount due under the cheque. However, within the

statutory period, the accused neither paid the amount nor issued any reply and

hence the complaint.

4. The Trial Court recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and

took the complaint on file in C.C.No.471 of 2008 and upon summoning of the

accused, copies were furnished and the accused denied the charge and stood

trial. The employee of the complainant, who has knowledge about the

transaction, namely Ramesh, was examined as P.W.1 and on behalf of the

complainant, Exs.P-1 to P-6 were marked. Thereafter, one Muruganantham,

friend of the petitioner/accused was examined as D.W.1 and the accused

examined himself as D.W.2 and Exs.D-1 to D-4 were marked on behalf of the

accused. The Trial Court, thereafter, proceeded to consider the evidence on

record and by a judgment, dated 10.06.2010 found that the only defence on

behalf of the petitioner/accused, that he has already paid the amount and

Exs.D-1 to D-4 are the receipts thereof, as unbelievable because the sum total

of Exs.D-1 to D-4 exceeded the sale price of Rs.14,70,000/- and therefore,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.624 of 2014

beleived the case of the complainant that the Exs.D-1, D-2 and D-4 receipts

actually belong to another transaction and does not relate to the purchase of the

same printer. Therefore, after rejecting the case of the petitioner/accused, the

Trial Court found that once the signature in the cheque, as having admitted and

the presumption under Section 139 read with 118 of the Negotiable Instruments

Act also come to the aid of the complainant, the complainant has proved the

offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act

beyond any doubt and sentenced the petitioner/accused as aforesaid.

5. The petitioner/accused filed Crl.A.No.40 of 2010, aggrieved by the

above said findings and conclusions of the Trial Court. By judgment, dated

14.08.2012, after independently appraising the evidence on record, the

Appellate Court came to the conclusion that as claimed by the accused that if

Exs.D-1 to D-4 relate to the payment of the entire consideration, then there was

no need for the accused to part away with a signed cheques as security with the

complainant. Further, the Appellate Court also believed the version of the

complainant because of the amounts mentioned in Exs.D-1, D-2 and D-4, and

the complainant's version that they belong to some other transaction has to be

taken into account and when the accused has not taken any further steps to

prove all the receipts Exs.D-1 to D-4 relate to only to the purchase of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.624 of 2014

subject matter machinery, the Appellate Court rejected the grounds of appeal

and confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court.

6. Heard Mr.S.Janarathanam, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of

the petitioner/accused and Mr.Ruban D Silva, the learned Counsel appearing on

behalf of the respondent/complainant.

7. I am in agreement with the learned Counsel for the

respondent/complainant that in this case, the version of the accused that he has

paid the entire amount by virtue of Exs.D-1 to D-4 is totally unbelievable for

the reasons that firstly, the sum in Exs.D-1 to D-4 is in excess of Rs.14,70,000/-

being the sale price of the machine. Secondly, if such amounts have been paid

towards the purchase of the machinery, as rightly pointed out by the learned

Counsel for the respondent/complainant, there was no occasion for the

respondent/accused to part with six post dated cheques. This apart, in the

cross-examination of D.W.2/accused, the accused had categorically admitted

that the agreement is the one for the purchase of the Flex Digital Machine

Model Space jet printer. He further admitted that it is mentioned that

Rs.8,50,000/- has been paid as D.D in the said agreement and the balance is

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.624 of 2014

mentioned as Rs.6,05,000/- in the said agreement. Therefore, in view of the

categorical admissions in the cross-examination, no exception can be taken to

the considered findings of the Trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court in

this revisional jurisdiction.

8. Therefore, I see no merits in the present Revision Case and

accordingly, the same is dismissed.

19.01.2022

Index : yes/no Speaking/Non-Speaking order grs

To

1.The Additional District Judge, Chengalpattu

2.The Judicial Magistrate, Alandur

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.624 of 2014

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

grs

Crl.R.C.No.624 of 2014

19.01.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis