Madras High Court
K.Raja vs J.Bharat Karunanithi on 5 July, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.580 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.07.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.R.C.No.580 of 2019
K.Raja,
S/o.D.Kannan ... Petitioner
Versus
J.Bharat Karunanithi,
S/o.R.Jawahar ... Respondent
Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C, to
call for the records in Criminal Appeal No.38 of 2017 on the file of learned I
Additional District and Session, Cuddalore and set aside the order dated
29.04.2019 confirming the conviction and the sentence passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.1, Panruti in S.T.C.No.716 of 2013 by a judgment dated
06.04.2017 by allowing this revision.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Dayalan
For Respondent : Mr.S.Muthaiah
*****
ORDER
This Revision is filed by the petitioner, aggrieved by the order of the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Panruti, in S.T.C.No.716 of 2013, in and by
which, the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.580 of 2019
Negotiable Instruments Act and sentencing him to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of six months and directed to pay a cheque amount
of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant within a period of two
months there from and the judgment of the learned I Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Cuddalore in Criminal Appeal No.38 of 2017 thereby
dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner and confirming the conviction and
sentence imposed against the accused.
2.When the matter came up for hearing, the learned Counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner submitted that, since in this case, the petitioner had
already deposited the cheque amount to the credit of S.T.C.No.716 of 2013, the
same may be taken into account and the offence may be compounded.
3.The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant would
submit that complainant is unable to compound the case by accepting the
payment of Rs.1,00,000/- alone, because there are two other cases as against the
petitioner, in which, the petitioner offered to settle the cases and recording the
settlement, Lok Adalat closed those cases. But, however, the petitioner,
thereafter, did not pay the amount as directed by the Lok Adalat. Therefore, he
would pray that this Court can exercise its suo-motu powers and enhance the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.580 of 2019
compensation amount from Rs.1,00,000/-, so that the amount due to the
petitioner.
4.I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel
on either sides and perused the material records of the case.
5.As far as the submission of the learned Counsel for the complainant is
concerned, it may be seen that, even though the first borrowal is of the year
2012 and the cheque was bounced, the complainant himself has not taken into
consideration of the same, while he advanced loan for the second and third
time, in the year 2016 and he still proceeded to advance loans. Further, the
award of the Lok Adalat is that in the event of failure of the accused to pay, the
same shall be treated as a decree of the Civil Court and to be recovered with
interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Therefore, the complainant can very well
file an Execution Petition before the concerned Court and execute the award of
the Lok Adalat. Besides, in the absence of any revision filed by the petitioner,
this Court cannot enhance fine or compensation.
6.Now, coming back to the merits of the case of the petitioner, it is seen
that the case of the complainant is that he has advanced loan of Rs.1,00,000/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.580 of 2019
by way of hand loan and in return from of, the accused has issued a cheque.
The accused, even though had taken a stand that he has not borrowed the said
amount due under the cheque, however, was not successful in rebutting the
presumption to the level of preponderance of probability, the Trial Court as
well as the first Appellate Court found the accused guilty by virtue of Section
138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and imposed the sentence as aforesaid.
Therefore, I am of the view that the conviction as against the accused cannot be
up turned in this revision.
7.But, however, considering the question of sentence, since the accused
has already deposited the cheque amount and considering the over all facts and
circumstances of the case, I am inclined to modify the sentence as follows :-
(i) the accused shall pay a total fine of Rs.1,05,000/-,
of the said amount, already a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- has bee
paid by the accused, therefore, the accused shall pay the
balance sum of Rs.5,000/- within a period of two weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to the credit
of S.T.C.No.716 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.I, Panruti;
(ii) in default of the payment of the said additional
sum of Rs.5,000/-, the accused shall undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of three (3) months;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.580 of 2019
(iii) the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- already deposited by
the accused shall be paid to the complainant on production
of the copy of the order by verification without insisting
upon any formal application.
8.With the above terms, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of.
05.07.2022
Index : yes/no
Speaking/Non-speaking order
sp
To
1.The I Additional District and Sessions Court, Cuddalore.
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Panruti.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.580 of 2019
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.,
sp
Crl.R.C.No.580 of 2019
05.07.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
