Madras High Court
K.Govindaraj vs P.Gnanamurugan on 19 October, 2022
Crl.RC.No.835 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.10.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.RC.No.835 of 2018
K.Govindaraj ... Petitioner
Versus
P.Gnanamurugan ... Respondent
PRAYER:
Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 397 and 401 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside the order of conviction dated
20.04.2018 in CA.No.261 of 2017 on the file of the I Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Erode confirming the conviction imposed in judgment dated
21.08.2017 made in STC.No.462 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate(Fast Track Court No.I), Erode.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Guruprasad
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.835 of 2018
For Respondent : No appearance
ORDER
This criminal revision is directed as against the judgment in
Crl.A.No.26 of 2017 dated 20.04.2018 on the file of the I Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Erode, thereby confirming the order passed in
STC.No.462 of 2015 dated 21.08.2017 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate(Fast Track Court-I), Erode, 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 herein for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act.
According to the respondent, he is the proprietor of M/s.Gnanamurugan
Textiles, Erode and he is doing textile business. The petitioner is the
proprietor of M/s.Ajanta Enterprises and he is also doing textile business at
Karur. He purchased textile goods to the tune of Rs.8,81,793/- under
invoices dated 21.12.2012, 24.12.2012, 26.12.2012 and 10.01.2013. In
order to settle the said bills, the petitioner issued two post dated cheques.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.835 of 2018
Both the cheques were presented for collection. However, both the cheques
were returned for the reason 'funds insufficient'. After causing statutory
notice, the respondent lodged complaint.
3. On the side of the respondent, he examined PW1 and PW2 and
marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P13. On the side of the petitioner, he examined DW1
and DW2 and marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D10. On perusal of oral and
documentary evidence, the trial court found guilty under Section 138 of NI
Act and sentenced him to undergo six months simple imprisonment. The
trial court also ordered compensation of the cheque amount. Aggrieved by
the same, the petitioner preferred appeal and the same was also dismissed
and confirmed the order of conviction passed by the trial court.
4. The petitioner raised grounds that there was no legally
enforceable debt in favour of the respondent. In order to rebut the
presumption, the petitioner examined DW1 and DW2 and marked Ex.D1 to
Ex.D10. Even without considering the above, the courts below convicted the
petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.835 of 2018
respondent produced Ex.P8 to Ex.P11, the invoices. All are self documents,
which will not bind the petitioner. There is no evidence to show that there
was transaction between the petitioner and the respondent. Therefore, the
alleged cheque was not issued for any legally enforceable debt. It was
originally issued as security purpose and even after made payment towards
purchase of textiles, the said cheque was misused by the respondent.
5. Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. On perusal of the records, revealed that the respondent was
examined as PW1. He deposed that the petitioner purchased textiles under
bill No.731 dated 21.12.2012, bill No.740 dated 24.12.2012, bill No.746
dated 26.12.2012 and bill No.795 dated 10.01.2013 to the tune of
Rs.8,81,793/-. The invoices were marked as Ex.P8 to Ex.P11. In order to
prove the same, the ledger of the purchase was also marked as Ex.P12. The
statement of accounts was also marked as Ex.P13. Therefore, the respondent
discharged his initial burden as required under Section 138 of NI Act. Then
the presumption under Section 139 of NI Act comes in favour of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.835 of 2018
petitioner. However, it can be rebuttable by the accused by probable defence
or atleast create a shadow of doubt on the cheques that the cheques were not
issued in discharge of any legally enforceable debt payable by the petitioner.
Admittedly, the petitioner never denied his signature in the cheque and also
issuance of cheque.
7. The only contention raised by the petitioner is that he was not
having any business transaction with the respondent and the workers had
colluded with him and misused the cheque. As stated above, in order to
prove that transaction, the respondent marked Ex.P8 to Ex.P13 and proved
the transaction by them. Though the petitioner examined DW1 and DW2,
there was nothing elicited from them to disprove the case of the respondent
herein. Therefore, the courts below rightly convicted the petitioner for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act and there is no infirmity or
illegality in the orders passed by the courts below. Further, when this Court
suspended the sentence imposed by the courts below, imposed condition that
the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the credit of the trial
court. However, the petitioner failed to comply with the said condition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.835 of 2018
8. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed.
19.10.2022
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
lok
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.835 of 2018
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.835 of 2018
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
lok
To
1.The I Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Erode
2.The learned Judicial Magistrate(Fast Track Court No.I),
Erode.
Crl.RC.No.835 of 2018
19.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
