Madras High Court
Bharathkannan vs T.Seenivasan on 25 April, 2023
Crl.R.C(MD)No.245 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 25.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C(MD)No.245 of 2018
and
Crl.M.P(MD)No.3240 of 2018
Bharathkannan,
S/o.Badra,
Old NO.31, New No.1,
Big Bazar Street,
Palani,
Dindigul District. ... Petitioner/
Appellant/Sole Accused
Vs.
T.Seenivasan ... Respondent/
Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 r/w 401
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the Judgment and
conviction made in C.A.No.67 of 2017 on the file of the Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Palani, dated 04.01.2018, confirming
the Judgment made in C.C.No.78 of 2015 on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court), Palani, dated 08.06.2017.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
Crl.R.C(MD)No.245 of 2018
ORDER
This revision has been filed to set aside the Judgment
made in C.A.No.67 of 2017 on the file of the Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Palani, dated 04.01.2018, confirming the Judgment
made in C.C.No.78 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate (Fast Track Court), Palani, dated 08.06.2017.
2.The petitioner is an accused in the complaint lodged
by the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3.The crux of the complaint is that the petitioner
borrowed a sum of Rs.17,00,000/- for his business purposes from
the respondent on 21.03.2015. In order to repay the said amount,
the petitioner issued a cheque for the said sum on 18.05.2015. It
was presented for collection and the same was returned
dishonoured for the reason 'funds insufficient'. After causing
statutory notice, the respondent lodged the complaint.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.245 of 2018
4.On the side of the respondent, he himself was
examined as P.W.1 and also marked Exs.P.1 to P.17 and on the side
of the petitioner, he himself was examined D.W.1 and no documents
were marked.
5.On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the
trial court found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to
undergo six months Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine of
Rs.4,000/-, in default, to undergo one month Simple Imprisonment.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal in
C.A.No.67 of 2017 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Palani. The appellate Court also dismissed the appeal and
confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.
Hence, the present revision.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.245 of 2018
6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that he had no instructions from the petitioner and reported
'no instructions'. Therefore, he is withdrawing his appearance on
behalf of the petitioner. Even then, the petitioner did not engage
any new counsel and failed to appear before this Court either by
person or through Pleader.
7.However, while suspending the sentence, this Court,
by order dated 24.04.2018 imposed a condition that the petitioner
shall deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the credit of the trial Court.
However, the petitioner failed to comply with the same and as such,
this Court, by an order, dated 02.08.2018, revoked the sentence
and directed the trial Court to secure the petitioner to make him
undergo the balance period of sentence in accordance with law.
8.On perusal of the records revealed that the
respondent discharged his initial burden as contemplated under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Though the
petitioner had taken a specific stand that the cheque was not issued
for any legally enforceable debt, it was issued for security purposes
at the time of borrowal of loan by his mother, however, in order to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.245 of 2018
substantiate the same, the petitioner failed to produce any material
on record. Further, the petitioner admitted the signature of the
cheque and issuance of the cheque. Another stand taken by the
petitioner was that the respondent had no source of funds in order
to lend such a huge amount. However, in order to substantiate the
same, the petitioner failed to rebut the initial presumption by reply
notice. That apart, the petitioner also failed to make any statement
under Section 313 of Cr.P.C Therefore, both the Courts below rightly
convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This Court finds no infirmity
or illegality in the order passed by the Courts below.
9.Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
The trial Court is directed to take steps to secure the
petitioner/accused to serve the remaining period of sentence.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
25.04.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
ps
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.245 of 2018
To
1.The Additional District and Sessions Court,
Palani.
2.The Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court),
Palani.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.245 of 2018
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ps
Order made in
Crl.R.C(MD)No.245 of 2018
25.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
