Madras High Court
N.Paulsamy : Revision vs Ramanathan on 4 January, 2023
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 04/01/2023
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.RC(MD)No.758 of 2021
N.Paulsamy : Revision Petitioner/
Accused
Vs.
Ramanathan : Respondent/Complainant
Prayer:- This Criminal Revision has been filed
under section 397 r/w 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
to call for the records relating to the order in CC No.
156 of 2018, dated 19/03/2019 on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate/Fast Track Court, Karaikudi, confirming in CA
No.25 of 2019, dated 30/04/2021 on the file of the
Additional District Court, Sivagangai and set aside the
same.
For Petitioner : Mrs.S.Mahalakshmi
For Respondent : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh
O R D E R
This criminal revision has been filed seeking to
set aside the order passed in CA No.25 of 2019, dated
30/04/2021 by the Additional District Court, Sivagangai,
confirming the order passed in CC No.156 of 2018, dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
19/03/2019 by the Judicial Magistrate/Fast Track Court,
Karaikudi.
2.The facts in brief:-
The petitioner is the Proprietor of Sri Amman
Pharmaceuticals. For his business purpose and family
expenses, he borrowed a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-, on
10/04/2018 from the complainant namely the respondent
herein. He promised to return the same within a month.
At that time, he also issued a cheque for the above said
liability and asked him to present the same as and when
required by him. Totally, seven cheques have been issued
for the above said liability, mentioning various dates
and various amounts as detailed in the complaint. At the
request made by the accused, all the cheques were
presented for payment, on 19/05/2018 before SDCC Bank,
Karaikudi branch. But all the seven cheques were returned
due to Insufficient Funds, on 22/05/2018. It was also
intimated to the accused by sending statutory notice
demanding payment of money. He received the statutory
notice, but no reply was given.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.On the basis of the above said, he filed a
private complaint and that complaint was resisted by the
accused stating that the above said cheques, which were
kept by him were stolen by his own father and handed over
the same to the complainant for the purpose of foisting a
false case due to previous enmity between himself and his
father.
4.At the conclusion of the trial process, the
trial court came to the conclusion that the case against
the accused was proved beyond all reasonable doubt,
convicted and sentenced him to undergo six months simple
imprisonment for the offence under section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act and Rs.7,50,000/- was imposed
as fine. Out of the above said amount of Rs.7,50,000/-,
Rs.7,00,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation.
Against which, he preferred appeal before the Additional
District Judge, Sivagangai, in Crl.A No.25 of 2019. That
came to be dismissed, on 30/04/2021.
5.Now challenging the concurrent findings of the
trial court as well as the first appellate court, this
revision has been preferred.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6.During the pendency of the revision, at the
request made by the petitioner as well as the respondent,
the matter was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation
Centre, attached to this Bench for settlement. But only a
portion of the amount was paid and no settlement could be
arrived between the parties, in-spite of repeated
adjournments. So on the basis of the available records,
the matter has to be disposed of, by considering the
rival submissions.
7.What has been stated by him is that the above
said cheques have been stolen by his own father and
handed over the same to the complainant for the purpose
of foisting a false case. He has also admitted that both
are closely related.
8.When that is being so, the necessity for the
father of the accused to steal the cheques and hand over
the same to the complainant for the purpose of foisting a
false case is not explained and it is absolutely without
any merit and basis. Not even a single circumstance has
been brought on record by the accused to show that fact.
So in the absence of any such satisfactory rebuttal,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
naturally, presumption under section 139 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act will be attracted.
9.In the written argument, several points have
been raised. One of the grounds is that some of the
cheques were returned due to Insufficient Funds and some
of the cheques were returned due to stoppage of payment
and closure of the account. So even the closure of the
account and stoppage of payment will attract the offence
under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
which cannot be disputed by the petitioner.
10.The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner would rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa
[(2019)5 SCC 418] for the purpose of argument that the
presumption under section 139 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act is rebuttable one and for that purpose,
the accused can rely upon the materials and circumstances
to make out the probable defence; It is not necessary for
the accused to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt
and also, it is not necessary for him to enter into the
box to give evidence. So this judgment has been relied
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
upon for the purpose of showing that the trial court has
given a wrong finding that due to non- appearance of the
accused as a witness, adverse inference has to be drawn
against him.
11.No doubt that sort of observation is wrong
legally. But other circumstance, as mentioned earlier, is
against the case of the petitioner.
12.Not even a single circumstance has been brought
on record to show that the above said cheques have been
stolen by his own father and handed over the same to the
complainant for the purpose of foisting a false case.
Absolutely, this defence is improbable, unreasonable and
baseless also.
13.The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner would rely upon the judgment of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in the case of Parveen Mehta Vs.
Vishal Joshi made in CRM-A-1997-MA-2015, dated 16th May
2022. According to him, the complaint ought to have filed
only before the jurisdictional court where the dishonour
takes place and this judgment is also relied for other
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
purpose to show that a probable defence can be taken by
the accused, that is sufficient for rebutting the
presumption. But I am unable to agree this line of
argument. There can be no quarrel on that proposition.
The fact that the petitioner's father is in bed due to
ill health and the petitioner also deposited 25% of the
compensation amount before the trial court are not
sufficient for allowing the revision.
14.Absolutely, I find no merit in this revision
and no illegality and perversity has been committed by
the both the courts below. So the revision fails and the
same is liable to be dismissed.
15.In the result, this criminal revision is
dismissed.
04/01/2023
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
er
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To,
1.The Judicial Magistrate/
Fast Track Court,
Karaikudi.
2.The Additional District Court,
Sivagangai.
G.ILANGOVAN,J
er
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC(MD)No.758 of 2021
04/01/2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
