R.Chandrasekar vs T.Rajan
2022 Latest Caselaw 17265 Mad

                                                                              Crl.R.C.No.1365 of 2017

                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATED: 03.11.2022

                                                          CORAM:

                                    THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

                                               Crl.R.C.No.1365 of 2017 and
                                                Crl.M.P.No.13295 of 2017

                     R.Chandrasekar                                             ... Petitioner

                                                         Vs.

                     T.Rajan                                                    ... Respondent


                     Prayer: Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C.
                     to call for the entire records in so far relates to order passed in C.A.
                     No.52 of 2017 dated 03.10.2017 on the file of II Additional District and
                     Sessions Judge,          Salem, Salem District whereby        confirming    the
                     conviction and sentence dated 13.04.2017 passed in S.T.C. No.242 of
                     2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court), Attur,
                     Salem District and set aside the same.


                                       For Petitioner    : No appearance

                                       For Respondent : Mr.V.Purushothaman Reddy


                                                         ORDER

There is no representation for the revision petitioner today and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1365 of 2017

in the previous hearing.

2.This revision petition is filed against the concurrent findings of

the Courts below holding the revision petitioner guilty of offence under

Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to pay fine

of Rs.3,00,000/- and in default to undergo six months Simple

Imprisonment and the fine amount to be paid as compensation passed

in S.T.C. No.242 of 2012. The Trial Court judgment was confirmed by

the Lower Appellate Court in C.A. No.52 of 2017.

3.The case of the complainant is that for making jewels, he

placed order with the accused and advanced Rs.2,90,000/- on

25.01.2012. Even after lapse of two months, the accused did not

supply the jewels as ordered. After repeated demand, the accused

gave two cheques dated 25.04.2012, one for Rs.2,50,000/- and

another for Rs.40,000/-. When those cheques were presented for

collection, the same were returned with endorsement 'funds

insufficient'. Therefore, after issuing Statutory Notice dated

25.06.2012, the complaint was filed.

4.To prove the complaint, two witnesses were examined and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1365 of 2017

seven exhibits were marked. In defence, one document was marked

during the cross examination of P.W.1. The Trial Court, considering the

fact that cheques were signed by the accused to discharge the debt,

held the complaint proved and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.3,00,000/-

and in default six months Simple Imprisonment and the fine amount to

be paid as compensation to the complainant.

5.The said judgment was confirmed by the Lower Appellate

Court. Hence, the revision is filed alleging that the Courts below failed

to properly appreciate the evidence, particularly, Ex.D1/complaint

which indicate that there is a money dispute between the complainant

and the accused and therefore, a complaint to the Police Commissioner

was lodged.

6.However, as rightly considered by the Courts below, the Lower

Appellate Court held that based on the petition given by the

complainant against the accused, enquiry conducted and he himself

had handed over a letter to the police during the enquiry admitting the

liability and promise to pay the money before the first week of October

2012. In this connection, the Police Inspector, who registered the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1365 of 2017

complaint and investigated the matter, was also examined and his

evidence was not impeached.

7.Under such circumstances, since the accused had admitted the

issuance of cheques and the transaction between him and the

complainant, there is no perversity in the findings of the Courts below

to interfere with the same. Hence, this revision is dismissed as devoid

of merits. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

03.11.2022

vga Index:yes/No

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1365 of 2017

To

1.The II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem, Salem District.

2.The Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court), Attur, Salem District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1365 of 2017

Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.

vga

Crl.R.C.No.1365 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.No.13295 of 2017

03.11.2022

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