Madras High Court
P. Ramalingam vs V.Muthusamy (Died) on 26 July, 2022
Crl.R.C.Nos.907 & 908 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.07.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.R.C.Nos.907 & 908 of 2015
Crl.R.C.No.907 of 2015
P. Ramalingam ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.V.Muthusamy (died)
2.Kalaivani ... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of
Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.A.No.112/2014 on the file of the learned
V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore dated 08.07.2015
confirming the judgment dated 07.07.2014 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.1, Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level-I, Coimbatore made
in C.C.No.477 of 2013 and set aside the conviction and sentence.
For Petitioner : Ms. Y. Kavitha,
Legal Aid Counsel
For Respondents : R1-Died
No Appearance for R2
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.907 & 908 of 2015
Crl.R.C.No.908 of 2015
P. Ramalingam ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.V. Muthusamy (Died)
2.Kalaivani ... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of
Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.A.No.113/2014 on the file of the learned
V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, dated 08.07.2015
confirming the judgment dated 07.07.2014 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.1, Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level-I, Coimbatore made
in C.C.No.478 of 2013 and set aside the conviction and sentence.
For Petitioner : Ms. Y. Kavitha,
Legal Aid Counsel
For Respondents : R1-Died
No Appearance for R2
COMMON ORDER
These revision petitions are filed against the concurrent finding of
the Courts below holding the petitioner guilty of offence under Section 138
of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.907 & 908 of 2015
2. In C.C.No.477/2013, the trial Court found the petitioner guilty,
convicted and sentenced him to undergo five months simple imprisonment
and fine of Rs.2,500/-, in default, to undergo one month simple
imprisonment. On appeal, the conviction and sentence was confirmed by
the V Additional District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore in Crl.A.No.112
of 2014. Aggrieved by that the petitioner has preferred Crl.R.C.No.907 of
2015.
3. At the time of admission, he has sought for suspension of
sentence. This Court considering the petition for suspension of sentence,
directed the petitioner herein to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the credit of
C.C.No.477 of 2013 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court-I,
Coimbatore, within a period of 4 weeks and shall execute a bond for a sum
of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties subject to satisfaction of the Magistrate
concerned and appear before the Court concerned as and when required,
pending revision.
3/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.907 & 908 of 2015
4. In C.C.No.478/2013, the Judicial Magistrate, convicted the
petitioner to undergo six months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.3,000/-
, in default, to undergo 1 month simple imprisonment, the same was
confirmed by the appellate Court in Crl.A.No.113 of 2014 vide judgment
dated 08.07.2015. Aggrieved by that the petitioner has preferred
Crl.R.C.No.908 of 2015. Pending revision, sentence was suspended, on
condition, the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.75,000/- to the credit of
C.C.No.478 of 2013 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court
No.1, Coimbatore within a period of 4 weeks and shall execute a bond for a
sum of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties and to appear before the Court as and
when required. The petitioner after getting suspension of sentence has not
reported to this Court about the compliance of the condition.
5. When the matter was taken up for final hearing on 03.09.2021,
the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that he has not
received any instructions from the client. Therefore, this Court directed the
registry to appoint the counsel from the District Legal Services Authority
4/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.907 & 908 of 2015
and list the matter. Again, when the matter was listed, the counsel
appointed by the District Legal Service Authority, appeared and made her
submissions.
6. The matter is between two individuals, arising out of private
complaint filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. On merits,
both the Courts have found the petitioner guilty of issuing two cheques for a
total sum of Rs.3 lakhs (Rs.1,50,000X2) (C.C.No.478 of 2013) and 2 lakhs
(C.C.No.477 of 2013) and three cheques bounced without sufficient funds.
The defence taken by the accused is that the complainant has no source of
income and one Sundramoorthy from whom he is alleged to have borrowed
money to pay the accused is not examined and the subject cheques were
given as security. This defence has been negatived by Courts below since
the accused has not probabilised his defence with acceptable evidence.
5/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.907 & 908 of 2015
7. This Court concur with the view of the Courts below and finds
no merits in the revisions. Hence, both the revisions are dismissed.
26.07.2022
AT
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes/No
Speaking / Non-speaking
To
1.The V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.1,
Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level-I, Coimbatore.
6/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.907 & 908 of 2015
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
AT
Crl.R.C.Nos.907 & 908 of 2015
15.07.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
