Madras High Court
S.Visweswaran vs R.Padmanabhan on 12 April, 2023
Crl.R.C.No.223 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 12.04.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.R.C.No.223 of 2020
S.Visweswaran .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.R.Padmanabhan
2.The State represented by
The Public Prosecutor,
The Nilgiris District. ..Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Revision Case has been filed under sections 397
read with 401(2) of Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the judgment
made in C.A.No.54 of 2015 on the file of the Sessions Judge of Magalir
Neethimandram (FTMSC), Uthagamandalam, the Nilgiris, dated
06.12.2019 confirming the judgment made in C.C.No.468 of 2011 on the
file of the Fast Track, Judicial Magistrate at Coonoor dated 06.06.2015.
For Petitioner : No appearance
For R1 : Mr.N.Ponraj
For R2 : Mr.R.Kishore Kumar
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.223 of 2020
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the concurrent findings
of the Courts below holding the revision petitioner guilty of offence under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The sum and substance of the complaint is that the revision
petitioner in order to repay the debt gave a cheque bearing No.815411
dated 23.07.2009 drawn on M/s.Corporation Bank, Coonoor branch in
favour of the complainant. When the said cheque was presented for
collection, it was returned with an endorsement “Insufficient of funds”.
Hence the complainant issued a statutory notice to the accused calling
upon him to pay the cheque amount within a period of 15 days or else the
prosecution under Section 138 of N.I.Act will be initiated against him.
The said notice dated 30.07.2009 was received by the accused on
01.08.2009 and he gave a reply dated 12.08.2009 through his counsel.
Since he has denied the liability in his reply, complaint was filed before
the learned Fast Track Judicial Magistrate, Coonoor and same was taken
on file in C.C.No.468 of 2011.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.223 of 2020
3. Before the Trial Court, the complainant mounted the witness
box examined himself as PW.1 and in support of his complaint 5
documents were marked. The accused in defence has not let in any oral or
documentary evidence, however relying upon his reply notice and facts
elucited in the cross examination of PW.1, contended that the said cheque
was not issued to the complainant for discharge of debt owe to him and in
fact, it was given in blank to one Dr.Chandrasekaran in the year 2002,
when he and Dr.Chandrasekaran had money transaction. Later on, the
accused and Dr.Chandrasekaran arrived at a settlement and as a result
Dr.Chandrasekaran agreed to return the blank cheques given as security.
However, he did not return the cheque, but it has been misused by the
complainant, who was working under him as compounder, to file the
criminal complaint after filling up the blank cheque.
4. This contention as defence by the accused was not found
favoured by the Trial Court, since there was no evidence to substantiate
the said claim. The Trial Court found the accused guilty of offence under
Section 138 of N.I.Act. It convicted and sentenced him to undergo one
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.223 of 2020
year S.I., and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default one month S.I.
5. Canvasing the same defence, the aggrieved accused preferred
an Appeal before the Sessions Judge at Nilgiris. The said Appeal was
taken on file in C.A.No.54 of 2015. The lower Appellate Court, after
appreciating the evidence and the defence that the cheque was not given
to the complainant but given to one Dr.Chandrasekaran in the year 2002
and comparing the other cheques with the subsequent numbers, which
was presented in the year 2002 itself, concluded that the accused not able
to rebut the presumption against him even by preponderance of
probability, since no evidence let in by him to substantiate the fact that
the subject cheque bearing No.815411 was issued as a security to
Dr.Chandrasekaran in the year 2002. Hence the appeal was dismissed
confirming the judgment and conviction imposed by the Trial Court.
6. In the revision petition, it is again contended that the cheque
was issued only to Dr.Chandrasekaran and it was a blank cheque given to
him for the money transaction occurred in the year 2002. The cheque
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.223 of 2020
bearing No.815411 to 815416 were given to Dr.Chandrasekaran, who in
turn presented one cheque alone for collection and initiated criminal
prosecution, after the said cheque got bounced. The criminal prosecution
ended in conviction and the appeal filed by the accused also confirmed. In
the said circumstances, the accused, who preferred revision petition
before the High Court entered into compromise in the mediation and
compounded the offence. In the terms of compromise,
Mr.Krishnamoorthy has referred to the other cheques including the
cheque number 815411, which is the subject matter of the present
revision petition.
7. Though plea has been taken that the cheque which is subject
matter of the present Revision Petition is not given to the complainant to
discharge debt, the accused has not produed any documents to
substantiate this plea. Particularly, when he contend that in the
compromise memo Dr.Chandrasekaran has referred about the subject
cheque, without examining Dr.Chandrasekaran or filing the said
compromise memo, the said defence taken by the acused shall have no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.223 of 2020
consequence. The signature found in the cheque is admitted and the
reason for issuing the cheque though denied, no evidence let in to
substantiate to the said reason.
8. In the said circumstances, this Court finds no merit in the
revision petition. Therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this
Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The conviction and sentence
awarded by the Trial Court is hereby confirmed. It is made clear that the
period of incarceration undergone by the appellant / accused during the
course of investigation / trial is ordered to be set-off under section 428
Cr.P.C.
12.04.2023
Internet : Yes/No
Index: Yes/No
rpl
To
1.The Magalir Neethimandram (FTMSC), Uthagamandalam, the Nilgiris
2.The Fast Track, Judicial Magistrate at Coonoor.
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.223 of 2020
rpl
Crl.R.C.No.223 of 2020
12.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
