Madras High Court
Rajaram vs A.Murugesan on 20 October, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.677 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.10.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C.No.677 of 2018
Rajaram ... Petitioner
Vs.
A.Murugesan ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision case has been filed under Section 397 r/w
401 of Cr.P.C to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the
petitioners by the Second Additional District and Sessions Court, Erode in
C.A.No.325 of 2017 dated 11.04.2017 confirming the Judgment passed by
the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court-I, Erode in S.T.C.No.304
of 2013 dated 20.11.2017 by allowing this Criminal Revision Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Munuswamy
for M/s M.Sudha
For Respondent : Not ready in notice
No appearance
ORDER
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.677 of 2018
This Criminal Revision case has been filed to set aside the
conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioners by the Second
Additional District and Sessions Court, Erode in C.A.No.325 of 2017
dated 11.04.2017, confirming the Judgment passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Fast Track Court-I, Erode in S.T.C.No.304 of 2013 dated
20.11.2017.
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 23.01.2013, the
petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as loan. In order to repay the
same, the petitioner issued a cheque. When the said cheque was presented
for collection, it was returned dishonored for the reason “Account
Closed”. Immediately, after causing statutory 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.677 of 2018
and marked Ex.D1. On a perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the
Trial Court found the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo
six months simple imprisonment and also awarded compensation to the
tune of Rs.2,00,000/-, failing which, the petitioner shall undergo one
month simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner
preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed, confirming the order
passed by the Trial Court. Hence, this revision.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
alleged cheque was not issued for any legally enforceable debt. It was
issued only for the purpose of security. The respondent conducted a chit, in
which the petitioner was one of the subscriber. At the time of taking the
chit amount, the petitioner handed over 18 cheques as security to the
respondent. After payment of the entire chit amount, which was taken by
the petitioner, the respondent had returned only 8 cheques out of 18
cheques and the remaining cheques were misused by the respondent and
the respondent initiated proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.677 of 2018
Instruments Act. In support of the said contentions they also marked
Ex.D1 and it revealed that the respondent conducted a chit, in which,
along with the petitioner, one Gopal was also one of the subscriber. The
respondent categorically admitted that other than the petitioner, he also
initiated proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act as
against other subscribers. Therefore, it shows that the alleged cheque was
issued only for security purpose and not for any legally enforceable debt.
5. Heard, Mr.C.Munuswamy, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner.
6. A perusal of records revealed that the petitioner issued cheque in
order to repay the loan amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in favour of the
respondent. The said cheque was presented for collection and it was
returned dishonored for the reason “Account Closed”. Immediately, the
respondent caused statutory notice, which was marked as Ex.P3. It was
duly received and the acknowledgment was marked as Ex.P5. Even after
the receipt of the same, the petitioner failed to reply to rebut the initial
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.677 of 2018
presumption. Only in the cross examination, the petitioner stated that the
said cheque was issued for security purpose. However, the petitioner failed
to produce any material evidence to substantiate the said contention except
Ex.D1. Ex.D1 is nothing but the evidence in S.T.C.No.290 of 2010, which
was initiated by the respondent as against one Gopal. In the said
examination, the respondent deposed that he initiated the proceedings for
the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act as
against the said Gopal, for non payment of the chit amount. Therefore, it
has nothing to do with the present case.
7. Though, the petitioner had taken a specific stand that after
payment of the chit amount, the respondent failed to return the cheque
which were given as security purpose, the petitioner did not lodge any
complaint or did not take any steps to recover those cheques from the
respondent. Therefore, the petitioner failed to rebut the presumption as
contemplated under Sections 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.677 of 2018
8. Therefore, both the Courts below rightly found the petitioner
guilty 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.
9. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision case stands dismissed.
20.10.2022
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-Speaking order
mn
To
1. The Second Additional District and Sessions Court, Erode.
2. The Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court-I, Erode.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.677 of 2018
mn
Crl.R.C.No.677 of 2018
20.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
