Madras High Court
Kanagadurai vs K.S. Santhosh on 23 June, 2022
Crl.R.C.No. 84 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl. R.C. No. 84 of 2019
---
Kanagadurai ... Petitioner
Versus
1.K.S. Santhosh,
Proprietor
M/s. Quality Equipments & Suppliers,
No.213, Rangakonar Street,
Ram Nagar (PO), Kattoor,
Coimbatore.
2.The State,
Rep. by Public Prosecutor,
Coimbatore. ... Respondents
Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 read with Section
401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the judgment of dismissal passed in C.A.No.
100 of 2017, dated 26.09.2018 passed by the learned III Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, confirming the judgment of
conviction passed in C.C.No. 58 of 2015 by the learned Judicial
Magistrate [Fast Track Court No.I], Coimbatore, dated 13.04.2017.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No. 84 of 2019
For Petitioner : Mr. V. Sivakumar
For R1 : Mr. T.Muthukrishnan
For R2 : Mr. S. Vinoth Kumar
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
---
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner/accused
aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate [Fast Track
Court No.I], Coimbatore, dated 13.04.2017 passed in C.C.No. 58 of 2015
in and by which, he was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, and sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay the cheque amount of
Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation within two months from the date of the
judgment, which was confirmed by the judgment of the learned III
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, dated 26.09.2018 in
C.A.No. 100 of 2017 by dismissing the appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No. 84 of 2019
2. Heard Mr.V.Sivakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr. T. Muthukrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent
and Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
appearing for the second respondent and perused the materials placed on
record.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this
is a case in which the Complainant claims that the cheque was issued
towards supply of Lathe Machines in the year 2012. According to the
learned counsel, no such supply of Lathe Machines was made and the
invoices produced by the Complainant do not bear the signature of the
petitioner/accused. The Complainant has not produced any document to
show that the petitioner-accused has placed an order for supply of the
machinery or when the order was made. This apart, in the cross-
examination of the Complainant, he admitted that there was no transaction
taken place between the complainant and the accused after January 2013.
Thus, for having supplied Lathe Machines allegedly during the year 2012,
no reasonable man would accept payment belatedly in the year 2013. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No. 84 of 2019
cheque was issued in respect of an earlier transaction and it was misused
and presented by the complainant. Therefore, he would submit that the
accused has raised a probable defence and rebutted the presumption raised
by the complainant, but it was not properly considered by the Trial Court
as well as the Lower Appellate Court.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Complainant
would submit that even the demand notice sent under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act has been refused by the accused and no reply,
whatsoever has been sent by him. He would submit that the learned
counsel for the petitioner has conveniently read only one sentence of the
answer of the complainant in the Cross-examination without mentioning
the previous sentence, in which, it has been stated that at the end of the
year 2012-2013, the machineries were supplied. The complainant also
clearly stated about the factum of delivery of the goods supplied. In the
Cross-examination the accused did not elicit any further answer in his
favour. In any event, the petitioner-accused admitted having issued a
cheque, the complainant presented it but it was dishonoured. On such
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No. 84 of 2019
dishonour, a demand notice was issued and thereby the complainant raised
a valid presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
read with Section 139 of the said Act. The accused has not raised his little
finger to rebut the presumption and therefore, the Lower Appellate Court
was right in confirming the conviction imposed by the trial Court. He
therefore prayed for dismissal of the Revision.
5. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and
perused the materials on record.
6. The Complainant had prima facie produced the cheque. The
signature of the cheque was admitted by the petitioner/accused. The
Complainant has proved the ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, by presenting the cheque, which was returned
dishonourd. Thereafter, he issued a demand notice for payment of money
covered in the cheque thereby he raised a clear presumption under Section
118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, the only
question for consideration is the liability on the part of the accused, which
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No. 84 of 2019
he disputes.
7. The defence of the accused is that no such machinery was
supplied to him by the complainant. In this case, the presumption under
Section 118 and 139 of the Act, comes to the aid of the Complainant. It is
seen that the accused to prove his probable defence. Except for getting
one answer from the Complainant that after January, 2013, there was no
materials supplied, no other answer has been elicited in the Cross-
examination of the Complainant in favour of the accused.
8. As per the Complainant, the Lathe Machines were supplied
on 21.11.2012 and on 18.01.2013. The complainant also, in the Chief-
examination reiterated it and marked documents to that effect. Therefore,
the said statement of the complainant, coupled with the presumption under
the Act, which was not disproved by the accused by probable defence.
This apart, no evidence whatsoever has been let-in by the accused in any
manner to show that the machine was not at all supplied. The accused also
accepted that he had issued the cheque. He also admitted his signature in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No. 84 of 2019
the cheque. Therefore, the accused had miserably failed to rebut the
presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. There
is no merit in this Revision and it is accordingly dismissed. However, two
weeks time from today is granted to the petitioner/accused to surrender
and undergo the remaining period of sentence.
9. Accordingly, this Revision is dismissed.
23.06.2022
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
msm
To
1. The III Additional District and Sessions Judge Coimbatore.
2. The Judicial Magistrate-Fast Track Court No.I, Coimbatore.
3. The Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No. 84 of 2019
D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
msm
Crl.R.C.No. 84 of 2019
23.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
