E.P.Ravi vs Adhi Narayanan
2022 Latest Caselaw 16170 Mad

                                                                                   Crl.RC.No.1477 of 2019

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                       DATED: 12.10.2022

                                                              CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                                   Crl.RC.No.1477 of 2019

                     E.P.Ravi                                                ...     Petitioner


                                                          Versus


                     Adhi Narayanan                                    ...           Respondent


                     PRAYER: Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the

                     Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside the order dated 20.11.2019 in

                     Crl.A.No.56 of 2019 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Tindivanam,

                     Villupuram District confirming the order dated 19.03.2019 in CC.No.1 of

                     2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Gingee, Villupuram District.

                                      For Petitioner      :     Mr.R.Rajarajan

                                      For Respondent      :     Mr.P.Singaram



                                                              ORDER

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC.No.1477 of 2019

This criminal revision is directed as against the judgment dated

20.11.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.56 of 2019 on the file of II Additional

Sessions Judge, Tindivanam, Villupuram District, thereby confirming the

order of conviction dated 19.03.2019 passed in CC.No.1 of 2017 on the file

of the Judicial Magistrate, Gingee, Villupuram District, thereby convicted the

petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act.

2. The petitioner is the accused in the complaint lodged by the

respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act alleging

that during the month of August, 2016, the petitioner borrowed a sum of

Rs.8,00,000/- by cash and promised to repay the said amount. In order to

repay the said amount, he issued cheque for the said sum and the same was

presented for collection, which was returned dishonoured for the reason

'funds insufficient'. After causing statutory notice, the respondent lodged

complaint.

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

marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. On the side of the petitioner, no one was examined

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC.No.1477 of 2019

and no documents were marked. On perusal of oral and documentary

evidence, the trial court found him guilty for the offence punishable under

Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for

a period three months and also awarded compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-.

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

dismissed by the first appellate court and confirmed the order of conviction.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that except the

cheque, no other documents were produced by the respondent before the trial

court to establish the source of alleged payment of loan to the tune of

Rs.8,00,000/-. In fact, even according to the respondent, he accepted part

payment made by the petitioner. Even then, the respondent presented cheque

for the entire amount. Further, at the time of borrowal of loan, the petitioner

issued only pro note and no cheque was issued. Therefore, the respondent

failed to prove the case as contemplated under Section 138 of NI Act.

5. Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

counsel for the respondent.

6. On perusal of the records, revealed that the petitioner never

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC.No.1477 of 2019

denied the signature of the cheque and issuance of cheque. After borrowal of

loan, the petitioner issued cheque and the same was presented for collection.

It was returned on the ground that 'funds insufficient'. Immediately, the

respondent caused legal notice and the same was returned with endorsement

'not claimed'. Further, the petitioner categorically admitted his liability. He

made statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. that he needs further time to

settle the amount. Further, the respondent admitted that so far the petitioner

paid a sum of Rs.1,60,000/-. Therefore, the courts below rightly awarded

compensation after reducing the amount which was paid by the petitioner.

Since the petitioner failed to deny the issuance of cheque, then the

presumption is in favour of the person who hold the cheque. Though the said

presumption is rebuttable presumption, the petitioner failed to rebut the same.

While being so, the presumption under Sections 118 sub clause (a) and 139 of

NI Act regarding the passing of consideration and the cheque has been issued

by the petitioner to discharge the legally enforceable debt has been

established by the respondent. Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity or

illegality in the orders passed by the courts below.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC.No.1477 of 2019

7. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed and the

respondent is permitted to withdraw the amount which was already deposited

by the petitioner before the trial court.

12.10.2022 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order lok

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,

lok

To

1.The II Additional Sessions Judge, Tindivanam, Villupuram District

2.The Judicial Magistrate, Gingee, Villupuram District.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC.No.1477 of 2019

Crl.RC.No.1477 of 2019

12.10.2022

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