V.Sukumaran vs G.S.Reddy
2022 Latest Caselaw 15743 Mad

                                                                              Crl.R.C.No.1231 of 2017

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    Dated: 26.09.2022

                                                           Coram:

                                  THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN

                                           Criminal Revision Case 1231 of 2017

                     V.Sukumaran                                                 .. Petitioner

                                                           /versus/

                     G.S.Reddy                                                   .. Respondents

                     Prayer:         Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397 r/w
                     401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the judgment of XVI Additional City Civil
                     Court, Chennai dated 18.08.2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No.114 of
                     2013 in confirming the judgment dated 28.05.2013 passed by the
                     Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court-I, Egmore, Chennai-81 in
                     erroneously convicted the petitioner herein under Section 138 of the
                     Negotiable Instrument Act and sentencing him to 1 year Simple
                     Imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,25,000/- default sentence of 3 months Simple
                     Imprisonment.
                                          For Petitioner       :Mr.Krishnakumar
                                                                Legal Aid Counsel
                                          For Respondent       :Service awaited




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                   Crl.R.C.No.1231 of 2017

                                                           ORDER

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed challenging the legality of the

order passed by the lower Appellate Court in C.A.No.114 of 2013

confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the

Metropolitan Magistrate (Fast Track Court-1), Egmore, Chennai in

C.C.No.1226 of 2011.

2. The facts of the case is that the petitioner herein borrowed a

sum of Rs.1,25,000/- from the respondent complainant and to discharge the

said debt, he gave two cheques one for Rs.50,000/- and another for

Rs.75,000/- dated 04.03.2010 and 15.04.2010 respectively. On presentation

of the cheques, they were bounced with an endorsement “insufficient fund”.

Statutory notice was issued on 18.09.2010 and the same was received by the

petitioner/accused but failed to reply and not paid the cheque amount.

Hence, this complaint.

3. To prove the case, the complainant examined himself as PW-1,

10 exhibits were marked on the side of the complainant. 3 documents were

marked on the side of the accused to discharge the burden of liability.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1231 of 2017

4. However, the trial Court held that the signatures in the cheques

are not disputed. When the statutory notice was issued, he did not deny the

liability. The plea of the accused that the date of borrowing the money not

been properly mentioned in the complaint was overruled by the trial Court

on the ground that though the exact date of lending the money has not been

specified by the complainant. The date of cheques would indicate that the

borrowing date was prior to the cheques date. Relying upon the

pronouncement of this Court and other High Courts and particularly, in the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rangappa v. Sri Mohan

reported in [CDJ (2010) SC 418], the trial Court held the accused guilty and

ordered him to pay compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- within a period of 3

months, in default, to under 3 months SI, besides one year Simple

Imprisonment for giving cheques without sufficient funds. The Appeal

preferred by the accused also came to be dismissed by confirming the

conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. Against the concurrent

finding of the Courts below, the present Criminal Revision Case has been

filed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1231 of 2017

5. The petitioner pleaded that the cheques were not issued to

discharge the legally enforceable debt. Prior two months for issuance of the

cheques, the petitioner was abducted and blank cheques were obtained by

the complainant. In this connection, the complaint was given and the same

was registered as CSR, which is marked as Ex.P8(series). The complainant

has presented the blank cheques and pro-note for collecting the money and

the same has been proved by marking Exs.D1 and D2. However, the Courts

below failed to consider these documents and also failed to consider the

money suit filed by the wife of the complainant against this petitioner for a

sum of Rs.3,42,000/- alleging she gave Rs.3,00,000/- with interest and the

petitioner failed to pay the money. The said suit in O.S.No.11429 of 2010 is

filed in the year 2010 and the judgment copy of the said suit is marked as

Ex.D3. While already the petitioner/accused owed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-

to the wife of the complainant and the suit is pending for recovery, no

prudent man will further advance of Rs.1,25,000/- to the petitioner and this

point has not been considered by the Courts below.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1231 of 2017

6. The provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

fastened the criminal liability on the drawer of the cheque, if the cheque is

issued to discharge the legally enforceable debt. Under Section 139 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 further says that if any cheque issued

from the account maintained by the drawer, it is to be presumed that the

cheque is issued for discharge of the legally enforceable debt. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court and our High Court on various occasions held that if the

signature in the cheque is admitted, the fundamental fact that the cheque

was issued by the accused person, held to be proved, then the presumption

under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is attracted.

7. It is burden of the accused to establish that the cheques were

not issued for any legally enforceable debt. After catena of pronouncements

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rangappa v. Sri Mohan reported in [CDJ

(2010) SC 418], the burden of discharge the statutory presumption starts the

moment the accused received the statutory notice. In this case, the accused

inspite of receiving the statutory notice, has not replied. Relying upon the

police complaint of abduction, the accused has attempted to probablies his

defence but the same has not been found favour to him by the Courts below.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1231 of 2017

8. This Court is also not convinced with the probable defence by

the accused by marking Ex.D1 to Ex.D3. These documents as well as Ex.P8

(series), Ex.P9(series) and Ex.P10(series) only indicates that there was

money transaction between the accused and the respondent/complainant.

The dispute has cropped up, when the petitioner failed to repay the money

leading to mutual complaint against each other.

9. For the aforesaid reasons, this Criminal Revision Case is

dismissed.

26.09.2022

Index:yes/no Internet:yest/no Speaking order/non speaking order ari To:

1.The XVI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.

2.The Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court-I, Egmore, Chennai.

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1231 of 2017

ari

Crl.R.C.No.1231 of 2017

26.09.2022

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