Madras High Court
R.Murugesan vs G.Arthanareeswaran on 14 October, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.428 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.428 of 2018
R.Murugesan ... Petitioner
Vs.
G.Arthanareeswaran ... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Revision case has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401
of Cr.P.C, to call for the records and to set aside the Judgment and
conviction passed by the learned Judge on the II Additional District &
Sessions Court at Erode in Crl.Appeal No.27 of 2017 on 23.08.2017 as
well as the Judgment and conviction passed by learned Judicial
Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.II, in Erode in STC.No.266 of 2014 on
26.12.2016 and to revise the same and acquit the
petitioner/appellant/accused herein.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Murali
For Respondent : Mr.N.Manokaran
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.428 of 2018
ORDER
This Criminal Revision case has been filed to set aside the
Judgment and conviction passed by the learned Judge on the II Additional
District & Sessions Court at Erode in Crl.Appeal No.27 of 2017 on
23.08.2017 as well as the Judgment and conviction passed by learned
Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.II, in Erode in STC.No.266 of
2014 on 26.12.2016, 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. The crux of the complaint is that the respondent supplied
goods to the respondent to the tune of Rs.5,05,598/-. In order to
discharge the said liability, the petitioner issued a cheque and the same
was presented for collection. However, it was returned dishonoured for
the reason “Insufficient Funds”. After causing legal notice, the respondent
lodged a complaint for the offence punishable under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.428 of 2018
3. On the side of the respondent, he was examined as P.W.1 and
P.W.2 was also examined and marked Exs.P1 to P19. 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 sentenced him to undergo one year simple
imprisonment and also ordered compensation of a sum of Rs.5,000/-, in
default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the
same, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was also dismissed,
confirming the order passed by the Trial Court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised grounds that the
respondent failed to prove his case as contemplated under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act. Though, the respondent alleged that the
cheque was issued in order to discharge the liability of purchase of goods,
no document was produced to prove the same. He failed to file any
corresponding delivery Note/Challan to corroborate the transfer of goods
from the respondent to the petitioner. Therefore, the cheque was not
issued for any legally enforceable debt.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.428 of 2018
5. A perusal of records revealed that the respondent supplied
goods to the tune of Rs.5,05,598/-. In order to discharge the said liability,
the petitioner issued cheques which were marked as Ex.P4 and Ex.P5.
The respondent also marked the documents which were connected to the
commercial taxes in respect of his business as Exs.P11 to P13. He also
produced invoices account filed in the year 2013 to 2014, which were
marked as Ex.P14 and Ex.P15 to substantiate the claim of the respondent
herein. The respondent also marked income tax returns for the year 2013-
2014, which was marked as Ex.P16. Therefore, the respondent proved
his case as contemplated under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act, since the petitioner never denied the issuance of cheque and never
disputed the signature found in the cheque.
6. Therefore, the respondent proved his initial burden as
contemplated under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Though,
the petitioner can rebut the presumption, he failed to rebut the
presumption by any probable evidence. In fact, after receipt of the legal
notice, the petitioner did not even reply for the statutory notice caused by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.428 of 2018
the respondent herein. That apart, while suspending the sentence, this
Court imposed a condition to deposit 50% of the cheque amount. Even till
today, the petitioner failed to comply with the same and the petitioner is
enjoying the order of suspension of sentence.
7. Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the orders
passed by the Courts below and this revision is liable to be dismissed.
8. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision case stands dismissed.
14.10.2022
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
mn
To
1.The II Additional District & Sessions Court,
Erode.
2.The Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.II,
Erode.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.428 of 2018
mn
Crl.R.C.No.428 of 2018
14.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
