Madras High Court
P.Parthasarathy vs Amutha on 27 June, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.261 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.06.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.R.C.No.261 of 2022
P.Parthasarathy ... Petitioner
Vs.
Amutha ... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 & 401 Cr.P.C, to
set aside the judgment passed in C.A.No.8 of 2017 on the file of the
Principal District and Sessions Judge at Vellore dated 01.09.2018 and the
judgment passed in C.C.No.139 of 2014 by the Magistrate, FTC at Vellore
dated 27.12.2016 by allowing this revision.
For Petitioner : Mrs.S.Girija
Legal Aid Counsel
For Respondent : Mr.M.Senthilkumar
ORDER
This criminal revision is filed aggrieved by the judgment of the
Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Vellore, dated 27.12.2016, in
C.C.No.139 of 2014 in and by which, the petitioner is convicted for the
offences under Sections 138 and 142 NI Act and was sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay the cheque
amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant with simple
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of complaint, in default,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.261 of 2022
to undergo three months simple imprisonment and to pay a sum of
Rs.5,000/- towards litigation charges and the judgment of the Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Vellore, dated 01.09.2018, in C.A.No.8 of
2017, by which, the appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentence
imposed by the trial Court was confirmed.
2.Heard Mrs.Girija, legal aid counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.M.Senthilkumar learned counsel for the respondent.
3.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that it is
the pleading of the accused that the signed cheques kept for the purpose of
his business was stolen and misused for the instant transaction. The said
defence was not at all considered by both the Courts below in proper
perspective. This apart, the signature in Exs.P1 promissory note and Ex.P2
cheques are visibly different. Therefore, the said factor itself would
disprove the case of the complainant that the accused borrowed the sum
with the complainant and for that purpose executed the promissory note
and thereafter, issued the said cheque. She would further submitted that
even in respect of service of notice, the acknowledgment card has not been
filed and even, if the acknowledgment card is filed, signature can be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.261 of 2022
verified and compared.
4.The learned counsel would further content that complainant in this
case had not properly and clearly pleaded the relationship between the
complainant and the accused. In the complaint, it is stated that the accused
is a known person. Only in the evidence, it is improved that the accused is
closely known to the complainant. Therefore, when the accused has
categorically pleaded that he had not even seen the complainant before and
they are seeing first time in the Court and DW1 had got into the box and
deposed the said fact, the trial Court and the lower appellate Court should
have acquitted the accused.
5.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent
submitted that the petitioner has not appeared before this Court and the
conditional order imposed by this Court was not complied with. Even
after the earlier order, the accused not even appeared before this Court. He
would further submit that the trial Court and the lower appellate Court
have categorically appraised the evidence and on finding that the accused
has failed to rebut the presumption, convicted the accused and therefore,
there is no ground to upturn the said findings by the trial Court and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.261 of 2022
lower appellate Court.
6.I have considered the rival submissions on either side. Perused the
material records in the present case.
7.It is seen that the defence of the accused is that he has kept the
signed cheques for his business purpose and the complainant along with
Manogaran have misused the said cheques and they have foisted a false
case against him. While such a defence has been taken, in the cross
examination of DW1, he had pleaded contrarily to his defence that he did
not know Manogaran. The trial Court therefore took into account the said
material contradictions in the evidence of DW1 and rejected the entire
defence. Therefore, in view of the said findings of the trial Court in
rejecting the defence and in the absence of the accused proving his
probable defence and when the presumption under Section 118 of NI Act
coupled with section 139 NI Act is in favour of the complainant, no
exception can be taken for the findings of the trial Court and the lower
appellate court has held that the accused has failed to rebut the
presumption, i.e., though the accused has pleaded that there is difference in
his signature, he did not take any steps to compare the said signature by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.261 of 2022
filing application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act.
8.This apart, the trial Court also relied upon the Ex.C1, which is the
complaint given by the Manogaran as against the accused, to render its
findings. Therefore, taking into consideration of all the above facts and
circumstances, I am of the view that the revision is without any merits and
the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court is confirmed and
the revision petition is dismissed.
9.Accordingly, the criminal revision is dismissed. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed.
27.06.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes /No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
sli
To
1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge at Vellore.
2.The Judicial Magistrate Court, FTC at Vellore.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.261 of 2022
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
sli
Crl.R.C.No.261 of 2022
27.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
