Madras High Court
P. Shanmugam vs R. Ravichandran on 17 June, 2022
Crl.R.C. No. 467 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.06.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
CRL.R.C.No. 467 of 2019
P. Shanmugam ..Petitioner
Vs.
R. Ravichandran ..Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Revision Case as against the judgment of the I
Additional District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore in Criminal Appeal No.
21 of 2018 dated 03.04.2019 confirming the order dated 21.12.2017 of the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level II,
Coimbatore in C.C. No. 15 of 2013.
For Petitioner :: Mr.P. Gurusamy
For Respondent :: Mr.T. Balaji
1\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C. No. 467 of 2019
ORDER
This revision is filed aggrieved by the judgment of the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level II, Coimbatore
dated 21.12.2017 in C.C. No. 15 of 2013, in and by which the petitioner was
convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act and sentenced to pay the cheque amount of Rs.2 lakhs as compensation
to the complainant, within one month and in default to undergo six months
simple imprisonment which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 21 of
2018 by judgment dated 03.04.2019 by the learned I Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
counsel for the respondent.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, drawing the attention of
this Court to the earlier complaint between the parties and the undertaking
given in the Police Station, would submit that there was no legally
enforceable liablity at all and it is a dispute between the contractor and the
principal, who had given his site to put up construction and the dispute
2\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C. No. 467 of 2019
whether the contractor was at fault or the site owner was at fault is pending
before the consumer forum and therefore, even without any liability, the
cheque was obtained. Further he would submit that the cheque was given
under duress and coercion before the Police Station, which fact is borne out
in the cross-examination of the complainant himself. Therefore, the learned
counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the absence of any legal
liability, the mere fact that the cheque was dishonoured cannot be taken to
construe that the petitioner has committed an offence under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act and prayed that this Court should reverse
the concurrent finding of both the Courts below and acquit the petitioner.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent/complainant would submit that even before the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, the verdict was given in favour of the
respondent and as against the same, the petitioner has preferred an appeal
before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Chennai and the
same is pending. The learned counsel would further submit that before the
Police Station, when complaint was given, pursuant to the understanding
3\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C. No. 467 of 2019
reached between the parties in the Police Station, in respect of the
complaint, the petitioner had agreed to give a total sum of Rs.5 lakhs and in
compliance of the same, as first instalment, the cheque in question was
issued. The learned counsel would submit that even in the reply notice to
the notice issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, there
is no whisper that the cheque was obtained under duress. On the other hand,
the petitioner had offered to pay the cheque amount provided the cheque
leaf was returned to him. In such circumstances, according to the learned
counsel, it cannot be said that the cheque was obtained under duress in the
Police Station and even assuming it is so, the petitioner had not taken any
steps immediately after giving the cheque stating that it was obtained under
duress. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the Courts below
had rightly convicted the petitioner and that there is no merit in the revision.
5. I have considered the rival submissions on behalf of the learned
counsel on either side and perused the material records of the case.
6. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that there is
no legally enforceable liability and that the cheque was given under duress.
4\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C. No. 467 of 2019
However, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent, if
the cheque had been obtained under duress in the Police Station, after
coming out of the Police Station or thereafter, no complaint, whatsoever,
was given to the higher officials by the petitioner. This apart, in the reply
notice issued by him, there is no whisper that the cheque was obtained
under duress. On top of it, he had even offered to pay the cheque amount if
the cheque leaf was returned to him. Under these circumstances, I am
unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner so
as to exercise the jurisdiction in a revision case and therefore, no exception
can be taken in respect of the finding rendered by the Trial Court as well as
the First Appellate Court and the conviction of the petitioner under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is hereby confirmed.
7. Coming to the question of sentence, the Trial Court has
imposed the sentence of six months simple imprisonment, which has been
confirmed by the First Appellate Court. In this case, it is pertinent to note
that pursuant to the direction issued by this Court dated 07.06.2019 in the
above revision, the entire cheque amount of Rs.2 lakhs has already been
5\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C. No. 467 of 2019
deposited by the petitioner to the credit of C.C. No. 15 of 2013. Therefore,
taking the same into consideration and taking into account the overall facts
and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to interfere with the sentence
imposed by the Trial Court.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed
with the following directions:
(i) The conviction of the petitioner under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C. No. 15 of 2013
by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court at
Magisterial Level II, Coimbatore and confirmed by the I
Additional District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore, in
Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2018 is sustained.
(ii) The sentence imposed is modified and the
petitioner shall pay a fine of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two
Thousand only) as the cheque amount has already been
deposited.
(iii) The fine amount of Rs.2000/- shall be paid within
a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order and in default, the petitioner shall undergo simple
6\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C. No. 467 of 2019
imprisonment for a period of one week.
(iv) As stated already, the entire compensation
amount of Rs.2 lakhs has been deposited to the credit of C.C.
No. 15 of 2013 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track
Court at Magisterial Level II, Coimbatore and the
respondent/complainant shall be entitled to payment out of
the same.
17.06.2022
nv
To
1. I Addl. District and Sessions Court,
Coimbatore.
2. The Judicial Magistrate,
Fast Track Court at Magisterial
Level II, Coimbatore.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY,J.
nv
7\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C. No. 467 of 2019
Crl.R.C. No. 467 of 2019
17.06.2022
8\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
