T.R.Kaleedass vs R.Pratab
2022 Latest Caselaw 6189 Mad

                                                                                           Crl.R.C.No.636 of 2018


                                  BEFORE THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED : 25.03.2022

                                                       CORAM

                             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

                                               Crl.R.C.No.636 of 2018

            T.R.Kaleedass                                                 ... Petitioner

                                                         Vs.
            R.Pratab                                                      ... Respondent

            Prayer : Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C,
            against the order dated 19.04.2018 made in Crl.M.P.No.26 of 2018 in C.A.No.11 of
            2018 on the file of the learned First Additional District and Sessions Court, Erode.
                                      For Petitioner   : Mr.N.Manokaran

                                      For Respondent : Mr.D.Raghu

                                                     ORDER

The petitioner/accused in S.T.C.No.279 of 2016 for the case under Section 138

of Negotiable Instrument Act was convicted by the trial Court by judgment dated

08.12.2017. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had preferred an appeal in

C.A.No.11 of 2018 before the First Additional District and Sessions Court, Erode.

During the pendency of the Appeal, a petition was filed under Section 315 of Cr.P.C.

in C.M.P.No.26 of 2018 for adducing additional evidences by examining the

petitioner/accused as a witness in this case. Earlier Appellate Court by order dated

19.04.2018 had dismissed the petition, against which the present revision has been

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.636 of 2018

filed.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner has got no financial

linking with the respondent. The Cheque in question has been managed by one Ram

through the respondent and the respondent filed a case. In the cross examination, the

respondent denied the specific case of the petitioner that the cheque was given to

Ram. Further the respondent had no financial status to extend a loan to a tune of

Rs.5,70,000/-. The petitioner had sent a reply to the Statutory notice calling for the

copy of the cheque, so that he can give a detailed reply. The respondent received the

aforesaid reply notice but failed to furnish the copy of the cheque or any rejoinder.

Thus, the petitioner at the initial stage itself disputed the issuance of the cheque, any

liability to the respondent. Therefore, the petitioner filed a petition before the trial

Court for adducing additional witnesses. The trial Court failed to consider the same

and on the same day rendered judgment on conviction. Hence, he was denied to file a

petition under Section 315 of Cr.P.C.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the case is of the year

2016 and the cheque was given in the year 2016. The petitioner adopted delaying

tactis by giving one reason or the other and the petitioner denied that the liability to

the respondent for payment of Rs.5,70,000/-. The petitioner filed a petition under

Section 315 Cr.P.C. to drag on the proceedings and the trial Court rightly dismissed

the said petition. Further the order of lower Appellate Court is a detailed one. Hence https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.636 of 2018

he prays for dismissal of the petition with a direction to the lower Appellate Court to

conclude the proceedings within a period stipulated period.

4. Considering the submission and on perusal of the case, it is seen that the

trial Court earlier had given reasonable time to cross examine the witnesses by the

petitioner and thereafter only, it had closed the defence case and posted the case for

judgment. On the date of the judgment, the petitioner filed a petition under Section

315 Cr.P.C. for adducing additional evidence. However, the trial Court found that

the said petition is filed only for protracting the trial and rightly dismissed the said

petition.

5. From the judgment of the trial Court, it is seen that the petitioner had

already cross examined the witnesses with regard to the relationship and transaction

with the said Ram. The petitioner had not taken steps to summon the said Ram

during trial. The respondent clearly denied any relationship with Ram. Further the

filing of a petition under Section 315 Cr.P.C. to mark additional evidence will no

way help the petitioner to defend his case.

6. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition.

Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Petition stands closed and this Court directs the

trial Court to conclude the appeal within a period of two months from the date of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.636 of 2018

M.NIRMALKUMAR, J.

kmm receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the observation made herein only

for disposal of this petition alone. The lower appellate Court to dispose the appeal

uninfluenced by the observations made herein in a dispassionate manner in

accordance with law.

                                                                                        25.03.2022
            Index                 : Yes / No
            Internet              : Yes/ No
            kmm

Note :In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

To:

The First Additional District and Sessions Court, Erode.

Crl.R.C.No.636 of 2018

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis