Madras High Court
A. Antony Raj vs Singaperumal on 7 July, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.409 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.07.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.R.C.No.409 of 2015
A. Antony Raj ... Petitioner
Vs.
Singaperumal ... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of
Cr.P.C., to set aside the judgment dated 19.03.2015 in Crl.A.No.19 of 2013
passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hosur confirming the
conviction and sentence dated 30.01.2013 in STC.No.4 of 2012 Court of
Judicial Magistrate, Hosur.
For Petitioner : No Appearance
For Respondent : Mr. D. Raja
for Mr. T. Panchatsaram
ORDER
The revision petition is filed by the accused to set aside the judgment
dated 19.03.2015 in Crl.A.No.19 of 2013 passed by the Additional District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.409 of 2015
and Sessions Judge, Hosur confirming the conviction and sentence dated
30.01.2013 in STC.No.4 of 2012 Court of Judicial Magistrate, Hosur.
2. Aggrieved by the concurrent finding of the Courts below in the
private complaint filed against him under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act, the petitioner has preferred revision.
3. The subject matter of the complaint, is a cheque drawn by the
accused for Rs.40,000/- in favour of the complainant. The said cheque was
issued to discharge the hand loan availed from the complainant. These two
cheques dated 15.08.2011 and 15.09.2011 each for Rs.20,000/- was
presented for collection on 24.11.2011, the same was returned for
insufficiency of fund. Therefore, after issuing statutory notice, the
complaint was initiated.
3(i). The accused contended that he borrowed Rs.3 lakhs from the
complainant and as a security, he executed a sale agreement on 28.07.2010
and also handover few signed blank cheques. The said loan was discharged
by repaying a sum of Rs.4 lakhs. The sale agreement was cancelled on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.409 of 2015
28.06.2011. However, the cheques were not returned by the complainant on
the pretext that it has been misplaced. Trusting his words, the accused kept
quite. Subsequently, as a carpenter, he had done some work for the
complainant and demanded Rs.80,000/- for the work done. At that time, the
complainant refused to pay the money stating that the accused has to pay a
sum of Rs.40,000/- as interest for the loan availed earlier and in that context
he has filled up the blank cheque and presented, when there is no legally
enforceable debt.
3(ii). The trial Court, after considering the rival submission and
evidence of P.W.1, complainant and D.W.1, accused, 6 exhibits were
marked on the side of the complainant and two exhibits were marked on the
side of the accused, held that the accused has not discharge his burden by
rebutting the presumption that the subject cheques were not issued for
discharge of any legally enforceable debt. Hence, found his guilt, convicted
and sentenced the petitioner to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment and
pay a compensation of Rs.45,000/- in default, 1 month simple
imprisonment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.409 of 2015
3(iv). Aggrieved by the sentence and conviction imposed on him, by
the trial Court, the accused preferred appeal before the Additional District
and Sessions Court, Krishnagiri in C.A.No.19/2013, the appellate Court
after re-appreciating the evidence, confirmed the trial Court judgment and
dismissed the appeal.
4. Aggrieved over this, the present revision is filed on the ground
that the Courts below failed to properly appreciate the defence of the
accused as spoken by him in his testimony and 2 documents i.e., Exs.D1 and
D2, which relates to the sale agreement and subsequent cancellation.
5. On perusing the grounds of appeal and Exs.D1 and D2 which
are relied by the petitioner herein, this Court finds that admittedly, there was
money transaction between the accused and the complainant on various
occasions. The accused has executed a sale agreement on 28.07.2010 and
the same was cancelled on 28.06.2011. In Ex.D1, the sale consideration is
shown as Rs.3 lakhs and Rs.2.75 lakhs paid towards part performance, with
11 months time to pay the balance amount. This deed of sale agreement
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.409 of 2015
subsequently cancelled on 28.06.2011 which is marked as Ex.D2. However,
the specific receipt of Rs.2.75 lakhs admitted in the sale agreement under
Ex.D1, there is no whisper about the money received as advance, while
cancelling the same, subsequently, the said omission is of no relevancy
since the subject cheques are dated 15.08.2011 and 15.09.2011 and which is
subsequent to the cancellation of the sale agreement. Therefore, it cannot
be presumed through D1 and D2, the accused has discharged his burden by
preponderance of probability. Therefore, this Court finds no merit in the
revision petition and the same is dismissed.
07.07.2022
AT
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes/No
Speaking / Non-speaking
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.409 of 2015
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
AT
To
1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hosur.
2.The Judicial Magistrate, Hosur.
Crl.R.C.No.409 of 2015
07.07.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
