S.Pushpalatha vs S.Dineshkumar
2022 Latest Caselaw 16405 Mad

                                                                               Crl.R.C.No.256 of 2018


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED: 14.10.2022

                                                     CORAM:

                             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                               Crl.R.C.No.256 of 2018


                S.Pushpalatha                                              ... Petitioner

                                                         Vs.
                S.Dineshkumar                                              ... Respondent

                Prayer: Criminal Revision case has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of
                Cr.P.C, to set aside the Judgment dated 30.01.2018 passed in C.A.No.213 of
                2017 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode
                confirming the Judgment dated 03.04.2017 passed in S.T.C.No.432 of 2014 on
                the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court (Fast Track Court No.I), Erode by
                allowing the present criminal Revision petition.

                                        For Petitioner : Mr.I.C.Vasudevan
                                        For Respondent : Not ready in notice
                                                         No appearance
                                                     ORDER

This Criminal Revision case has been filed to set aside the Judgment

dated 30.01.2018 passed in C.A.No.213 of 2017 on the file of the I Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Erode, confirming the Judgment dated 03.04.2017

passed in S.T.C.No.432 of 2014, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court

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

Crl.R.C.No.256 of 2018

(Fast Track Court No.I), Erode, thereby convicted the petitioner for the offence

punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

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

for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

The crux of the complaint is that on 25.06.2014, the petitioner borrowed a sum

of Rs.3,20,000/- as loan. In order to discharge the said liability, the petitioner

issued post dated cheque, dated 25.07.2014 for the said amount. On

instructions, the said cheque was presented for collection and the same was

returned dishonoured for the reason “Funds Insufficient”. After causing legal

notice, the respondent lodged a complaint.

3. On the side of the respondent, he was examined as P.W.1 and marked

Exs.P.1 to P.5. On the side of the petitioner, no one was examined and no

document was marked. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the Trial

Court found the petitioner guilty and convicted the petitioner for the offence

punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced her

to undergo six months simple imprisonment. The Trial Court also ordered

compensation of the cheque amount. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner

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

Crl.R.C.No.256 of 2018

preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Appellate Court,

confirming the order passed by the Trial Court. Hence, this revision.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the cheque

which was marked as Ex.P.1 was issued only for the purpose of security and

there is no legally enforceable debt in favour of the respondent herein. Further

contended that no amount was borrowed by the petitioner at any point of time

and the respondent failed to comply with the provisions under Section 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, the Courts below without considering

the above facts and circumstances, convicted the petitioner for the offence

punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

5. A perusal of records revealed that the petitioner borrowed a sum of

Rs.3,20,000/- and in order to repay the same, she issued a cheque and the said

cheque was presented for collection and it was returned dishonoured for the

reason “Funds Insufficient”. Though, the statutory notice was issued by the

respondent, the petitioner failed to reply to rebut the evidence of the respondent

herein. That apart, the petitioner failed to examine anybody and failed to mark

any document to substantiate the contentions raised by the petitioner. Therefore,

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

Crl.R.C.No.256 of 2018

the respondent discharged his initial burden as required under Section 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act. Though, the presumption can be rebutted by the

petitioner under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the petitioner failed

to rebut the presumption attached to the cheque and at least not created a

shadow of doubt on the cheque. Admittedly, the petitioner never denied the

issuance of cheque which was marked as Ex.P1 and also the signature of the

cheque. In fact, while suspending the sentence, this Court imposed a condition

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

Court. However, the petitioner failed to comply the same.

6. Therefore, both the Courts below rightly convicted the petitioner for

the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and

this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the orders passed by the Courts

below and this revision is liable to be dismissed.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision case stands dismissed.

14.10.2022

Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order mn

To

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

Crl.R.C.No.256 of 2018

1.The I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode.

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

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,

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

Crl.R.C.No.256 of 2018

mn

Crl.R.C.No.256 of 2018

14.10.2022

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