Madras High Court
V.Ramesh vs S.N.Devaraju [Died on 28 June, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.553 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 28.06.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.R.C.No.553 of 2014
V.Ramesh .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.S.N.Devaraju [Died]
2.Gopi
3.Jayapal
4.Sampath
5.Balakrishna
6.Manjula
7.Vamshidev
8.Pavanraj
[R2 to R8 impleaded as per order
in Crl.R.C.No.553/2014 dated 20.12.2021] ..Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Revision Case has been filed under sections 397
read with 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the concurrent
judgment and sentence dated 01.04.2013 passed in Criminal Appeal
No.71 of 2012 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Krishnagiri against the judgment dated 30.10.2012 passed in S.T.C.No.2
of 2011 on the file of Judicial Magistrate / Fast Track Court, Hosur.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.553 of 2014
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Samivel
for Mr.T.Arulraj
For Respondents : Mr.J.Hariharan
for Mr.V.Nicholas
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the
learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the
concurrent finding of the Courts below for a private complaint filed
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. The case of the complainant / respondent is that the
accused known to him for the past 10 years and he was a tenant under
him. To improve his business, he has received Rs.9,00,000/- as hand loan
and gave a post dated cheque, dated 19.07.2010. On presentation of the
cheque it was returned as 'Funds Insufficient'. After causing statutory
notice, a private complaint has been filed for action under Section 138 of
N.I.Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.553 of 2014
4. The accused took specific defends stating that on
20.03.2010, he entered into a rental agreement with the complainant in
respect of the shop premises owned by the complainant and as per the
terms of the rental agreement, the rent was fixed at the rate of Rs.100 per
day and an advance of Rs.20,000/- has been agreed to pay. In view of the
advance, a blank cheque drawn at IDBI bank bearing No.001227 was
issued to the complainant, the said cheque has been misused by the
complainant and filled it for Rs.9,00,000/- instead of Rs.20,000/- and to
discharge the same, the subject cheque was issued. Since the specific
defence was taken by the accused, the very genuineness of the rental
agreement was denied by the complainant. Hence the disputed agreement
was sent for examination of handwriting expert. The expert attached to
the State Forensic Laboratory dated 24.07.2012 stating that the
questioned signature found in the rental agreement differs from the
standard signature i.e., the signature of the complainant.
5. Therefore, on considering the other facts and the clear
opinion of the handwriting expert, that the alleged rental agreement is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.553 of 2014
forged one created by the accused to make a false defence, held that the
accused is liable to be punished under Sections 138 r/w. 142 of N.I.Act.
Accordingly the accused was imposed sentence to undergo Simple
Imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a compensation of
Rs.9,10,000/- to the complainant; in default of payment, Simple
Imprisonment for one month.
6. The judgment of conviction and sentence was challenged
by the accused before the Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Krishnagiri in Crl.A.No.71 of 2012. The appellate Court confirmed the
conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.
7. In the revision, it is canvased that the Courts below erred
in appreciating the evidence particularly Ex.D1 / the Rental agreement
and the purported signature of the accused and the complainant which
states about the blank cheque bearing No.001227 issued by the accused
drawn at IDBI bank, whereas, having established that the blank cheque
was given as a security towards the rental agreement advance, the Courts
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.553 of 2014
below have erred that the subject cheque was given in order to discharge
an enforceable debt.
8. This Court finds that there is no such error as pleaded in
the petition. The so called defence projected by the accused is found to
be false and he has taken a fake defence relying upon a fabricated
document.
9. In the light of Ex.P.10 - the expert opinion, about the
signature in the agreement / Ex.D.1, which clearly states that the
signature found in the agreement is not that of the complainant. Having
knowingly produced the fabricated document in the name of rental
agreement as if the same was entered into between the complainant and
the petitioner, the petitioner herein has attempted to escape from the
criminal liability. However, through the scientific evidence the
fabrication of the document is proved by the complainant, which has led
to discard Ex.D1 viz., rental agreement and to hold the petitioner guilty
of offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act and as on date the accused has
failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of N.I.Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.553 of 2014
10. This Court finds no error in the finding of the Courts
below. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. It is open to the
complainant herein to proceed against the petitioner for perjury, if he
chooses to do so.
28.06.2022
Internet : Yes/No
Index: Yes/No
rpl
To
1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri.
2. The Judicial Magistrate / Fast Track Court, Hosur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.553 of 2014
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
rpl
Crl.R.C.No.553 of 2014
28.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
