Madras High Court
J. Gurumani Raj vs M/S. Tulsian Refinery Pvt. Ltd on 27 October, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.1209 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.10.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C.No.1209 of 2018
J. Gurumani Raj ... Petitioner
Vs.
M/s. Tulsian Refinery Pvt. Ltd.,
Represented by its Managing Director,
Ajay Kumar Tulsian,
No-49, Elephant gate Street,
Chennai-600 079. ... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Revision case has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of
Cr.P.C, to call for the records and set aside the order passed in Crl.A.No.340 of
2017 (on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai) and confirming the
order passed in C.C.No.10986 of 2014 on the file of the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate Fast Track Court II at Allikulam dated 26.10.2017.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Vivekananthan
For Respondent : Mr.Siddharth Bahety
ORDER
This Criminal Revision case has been filed as against the Judgment passed
in Crl.A.No.340 of 2017, dated 27.09.2018, on the file of the Principal Sessions
Judge, Chennai, thereby confirmed the order passed in C.C.No.10986 of 2014
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1209 of 2018
dated 26.10.2017, on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Fast Track
Court II at Allikulam, 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
case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is the sole Proprietor of his company.
Towards the supply of refined sunflower oil, the respondent raised various
invoices on the petitioner. On such invoices, there is an outstanding of
Rs.3,50,000/- due, payable by the petitioner to the respondent. In order to settle
the said dues, the petitioner issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- and the
same was presented for collection. However, it was returned dishonoured for the
reason 'payment stopped by drawer'. 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.P1 to P6. On the side of the petitioner, no one was examined and no
document was marked. On a perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the Trial
Court found the petitioner guilty and convicted the petitioner and sentenced him
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1209 of 2018
to undergo one year simple imprisonment and also awarded compensation for a
sum of Rs.7,00,000/-, in default, to undergo three months 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 during the
cross examination, the respondent categorically admitted that he can produce the
ledger which was maintained towards their business transactions. At that
juncture, the petitioner stopped his cross examination of P.W.1 and filed a
petition under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. However, it was dismissed and the petitioner
challenged the same before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.11595 of 2017. Pending the
said petition, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, according to the
learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was not given an opportunity to
cross examine P.W.1 in full. In fact, the petitioner did not even commence the
defence while cross examination of P.W.1, since P.W.1 admitted that he can
produce the ledger in respect of their business transactions.
5. Therefore, the petitioner rebutted the presumption arising out of
Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. However, the petitioner is inclined to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1209 of 2018
settle the amount and accordingly the petitioner and the respondent agreed to
compromise for the total sum of Rs.7,00,000/-. Out of Rs.7,00,000/-, the
petitioner had already deposited a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- and he is ready to pay
the balance amount of Rs.5,25,000/-, within a period of four weeks.
6. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner,
the Judgment passed in Crl.A.No.340 of 2017, dated 27.09.2018, on the file of
the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, confirming the order passed in
C.C.No.10986 of 2014 dated 26.10.2017, on file of the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate Fast Track Court II at Allikulam, are hereby set aside, on condition
that the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.5,25,000/-, directly to the respondent by
way of Demand Draft, on or before 25.11.2022, failing which, the conviction and
sentence imposed by the Courts below shall stand automatically restored. On
such payment, the respondent is permitted to withdraw the amount which was
already deposited by the petitioner to the credit of the Trial Court, by way of
filing appropriate application. It is made clear that the Trial Court shall permit the
same, without ordering notice to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision case stands allowed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1209 of 2018
27.10.2022
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
mn
To
1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai.
2.The Metropolitan Magistrate Fast Track Court II at Allikulam
Chennai.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
mn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1209 of 2018
Crl.R.C.No.1209 of 2018
27.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
