Jayashree vs T.Senthil
2022 Latest Caselaw 15989 Mad

                                                                                    Crl.RC.No.72 of 2018

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                       DATED: 10.10.2022

                                                               CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                                       Crl.RC.No.72 of 2018

                     Jayashree                                                ...   Petitioner


                                                           Versus


                     T.Senthil                                          ...         Respondent


                     PRAYER: Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 397(1) r/w 401

                     of the Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside the judgment dated

                     06.12.2017 passed in CA.No.270 of 2017 on the file of the Principal

                     Sessions Court of Erode confirming the judgment dated 19.09.2017 passed

                     in STC.No.183 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court (Fast

                     Track Court No.II), Erode by allowing the present criminal revision

                     petition.

                                      For Petitioner       :     Mr.I.C.Vasudevan




                     1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                        Crl.RC.No.72 of 2018

                                                             ORDER

This criminal revision has been filed against the judgment dated

06.12.2017 passed in CA.No.270 of 2017 on the file of the Principal

Sessions Court of Erode confirming the judgment dated 19.09.2017 passed

in STC.No.183 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court (Fast

Track Court No.II), Erode.

2. Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. The petitioner is an accused in the complaint lodged by the

respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. The

respondent lodged complaint alleging that on 15.08.2010, the petitioner

borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for her urgent expenses. In order to

discharge the said liability, she issued cheque and the same was presented

for collection. However, it was returned dishonoured for the reason

“account closed”. After causing statutory notice as contemplated under

Section 138 of NI Act, the respondent lodged complaint.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC.No.72 of 2018

4. On the side of the respondent, he was examined as PW1 and he

marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. On the side of the petitioner, nobody was examined

and no documents were marked before the trial court. On perusal of oral and

documentary evidence, the trial court found the petitioner guilty and

sentenced her to undergo one year simple imprisonment and also imposed

fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred appeal and the same was

also dismissed and confirmed the conviction rendered by the trial court.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

cheque was issued for security purpose and the same was misused by the

respondent. The loan was borrowed by her husband and the same was duly

repaid by him. At that time of borrowal of loan, the cheque was given as

security purpose. Even after repayment of the entire amount, the respondent

failed to return the same. Therefore, there was no legally enforceable debt to

present the cheque for collection. However, the courts below without

considering the same, convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable

under Section 138 of NI Act.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC.No.72 of 2018

6. On perusal of the records, revealed that the petitioner borrowed

a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and in order to repay the same, she issued cheque.

The said cheque was presented for collection and the same was returned for

the reason 'account closed. However, the submission of the petitioner is

completely contradictory since she had taken a specific stand that the

cheque was issued for security purpose at the time of borrowal of loan by

her husband. Therefore, she never denied the issuance of cheque and

signature of the cheque. Further, she also failed to make any statement when

she was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. before the trial court.

Further, admittedly there was money transaction between both the petitioner

and the respondent herein. Even assuming that when her husband borrowed

loan, the cheque was issued as security purpose, even after repayment of the

entire loan amount by her husband, no steps had been taken for return of the

cheque. In fact, no complaint was also lodged by her husband or by the

petitioner herein.

7. That apart, when this Court suspended the sentence, imposed

condition that the petitioner shall deposit 50% of the cheque amount before

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC.No.72 of 2018

the trial court. It is also not complied with and the petitioner also failed to

take notice to the respondent even till today. Therefore, the trial court

rightly convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of NI Act and also the

appellate court rightly confirmed the same. As such, this Court finds no

infirmity or illegality in the orders passed by the courts below.

8. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed.

10.10.2022 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order lok

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC.No.72 of 2018

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,

lok

To

1.The Principal Sessions Court of Erode

2.The Judicial Magistrate Court (Fast Track Court No.II), Erode

Crl.RC.No.72 of 2018

10.10.2022

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