Madras High Court
R.G. Ramamoorthy … vs N.Ramalingam on 13 June, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.R.C.No.416 of 2014
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2014
R.G. Ramamoorthy … Petitioner
Vs
1. N.Ramalingam
2. The State
Represented by Public Prosecutor,
Coimbatore. … Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 397 r/w
Section 401 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal
No.44 of 2013 dated 06.09.2013, on the file of IV Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Coimbatore confirming the judgment passed by the Judicial
Magistrate, Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level-II, Coimbatore in S.T.C.
No.158 of 2012 dated 13.02.2013.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Pothiraj
For Respondents : Mr.K.Sudhakar
Legal aid Counsel for R1
: Mr.S.Suganathan
Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ORDER
This revision is filed challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts
below, holding the revision petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 138
of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1981.
2. Brief facts of the case is that the petitioner herein issued a cheque for
Rs.30,000/-, drawn in favour of the respondent to discharge the handloan
borrowed. The said cheque dated 15.03.2003 was presented for collection but
the same was returned unpaid with an endorsement “insufficient funds”.
Thereafter, a statutory notice dated 02.04.2003 was issued to pay the cheque
amount. Though the petitioner received the notice, he neither paid the cheque
amount nor replied to the notice. Narrating the above facts, criminal complaint
was filed before the Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore. The learned Magistrate
taking note of the fact that the cheque was drawn by the accused in favour of
the complainant and the presumption falls against the petitioner, which has not
been discharged and thereafter found the petitioner guilty and sentenced the
petitioner to undergo one month simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/-
in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment.
2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner
preferred an appeal before the IVth Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Coimbatore, who on re-appreciation of the evidence, confirmed the judgment
of the trial Court. Hence, the present revision by the accused.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would
submit that the complaint is not sustainable in view of the fact that the
statutory notice was not duly served on the accused. Secondly, the subject
cheque was given to the complainant only as a security and not towards the
discharge of any enforceable debt.
5. On perusal of the documents, it indicates that the statutory notice sent
to the address of the petitioner being received and in the acknowledgment
copy, the signature of the accused is seen predominantly. Taking advantage of
the fact that in addressee column, apart form the name of the accused, his
business name Devi Art Printers is also mentioned, it is the contention that the
statutory notice not duly served on the accused. The purpose of the statutory
3/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
notice is to inform the drawer of the cheque that the cheque issued was not
honoured and if the drawer fails to pay the cheque amount within 15 days, he
will be liable for criminal prosecution.
6. As far as the plea that the subject cheque was issued only as a security,
it is admitted by the petitioner that he borrowed a sum of Rs.18,000/- from the
complainant during the month of November, 2002 and gave a cheque as
security and he alleges that the complainant has filled the cheque given for
security for Rs.30,000/- and presented the same . He also pleaded that for the
debt of Rs.18,000/-, the complainant took away the computer of the petitioner/
accused which is worth about Rs.40,000/-. These averments are not duly
proved by the petitioner/ accused, though, he and one Murugesan has mounted
the witness box and being examined as DW1 and DW2.
7. In the light of the above fact, while the fact finding Courts have held
against the petitioner and the finding is neither perverse not improper, this
Court is of the view that there is no ground to interfere with the concurrent
finding of the Court below by exercising its revisional powers.
4/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
13.06.2022
gba
To
1.IV Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Coimbatore.
2.The Judicial Magistrate,
Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level-II,
Coimbatore.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
Coimbatore.
5/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
gba
Crl.R.C.No.416 of 2014
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2014
13.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
