N. Mani vs C. Selvakumar
2022 Latest Caselaw 16060 Mad

                                                                                  Crl.R.C.No.1434 of 2016


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                      DATED : 11.10.2022

                                                           CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

                                                Crl.R.C.No.1434 of 2016
                                                          and
                                           Crl.M.P.Nos.12488 & 12652 of 2016

                     N. Mani                                                   ... Petitioner

                                                             Vs.

                     C. Selvakumar                                             ... Respondent

                     Prayer: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 and 401 of
                     Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the order in
                     C.A.No.48 of 2015 dated 09.09.2016 by the learned Principal Sessions
                     Judge, Namakkal confirming the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate,
                     Tiruchengode dated 18.11.2015 in STC.No.46 of 2015 and set aside the
                     same.


                                     For Petitioner      : Mr.K.A.Mariappan

                                     For Respondent      : Mr.S.Viswanathan




                     1/6


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                        Crl.R.C.No.1434 of 2016




                                                            ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the accused who suffers

concurrent finding by the Courts below in the complaint initiated against

him under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. The case of the complainant is that a sum of Rs.5 lakh was

borrowed by the petitioner and he executed a pro-note dated 20.09.2013 and

agreed to pay the money with interest. On 23.09.2014, a cheque was issued

to discharge the debt and the pro-note was returned. However, the said

cheque on presentation, bounced without sufficient funds. Hence, after

causing statutory notice, complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act has filed.

2(i). The petitioner herein, in response to the statutory notice gave a

reply contending that the cheque was not issued to the petitioner and it was

given to one Rathinam and Muthusamy who had misused the same. There

is no privity of contract between the complainant and the petitioner and

there is no enforceable liability.

2(ii). When the matter was taken up for trial and the petitioner in the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1434 of 2016

witness box, admitted in the cross examination that the cheque was issued as

a security, whereas the loan borrowed from the complainant was discharged

with interest. However, the cheque given as security being misused.

Finding that the contradiction in the case of the defence, Courts below held

the petitioner / accused guilty.

3. In the revision, it is contended that having discharged the initial

burden that there is no enforceable debt, the complainant ought to have

proved the case. Whereas, the Courts below had erred in convicting the

petitioner. Further, it is also contended that the pending proceedings, the

petitioner has filed an Insolvency Petition and therefore, the criminal

complaint against him for non-payment of debt ought to have been

dismissed.

4. This Court, on considering the averments raised in the grounds

of revision and the judgments of the Courts below finds that the contention

of the petitioner regarding discharge of debt and discharge of burden of

proving innocence through Exs.A1 to A6 and D.W.1 to D.W.3 are not

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1434 of 2016

sufficient to probabilise the defence. The petitioner initially had denied any

transaction with the complainant. Later admits transaction and issuance of

cheque but denies liability. In addition, also takes umbrage under

Insolvency Petition filed against him.

5. Having admitted the signature found in the cheque and the

money transaction, the discharge of the liability has to be proved by the

accused. Whereas, in this case none of the documents relied by the

petitioner indicates that petitioner has repaid the amount which is admittedly

borrowed from the complainant.

6. In the said circumstances, this Court finds no error or illegality

in the judgment of the Courts below. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case

stands is dismissed, by confirming the judgments of the Courts below.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

11.10.2022

AT Index : Yes/No Speaking / Non-speaking

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1434 of 2016

To

1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal.

2.The Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1434 of 2016

Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.

AT

Crl.R.C.No.1434 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.Nos.12488 & 12652 of 2016

11.10.2022

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