Madras High Court
M.Kanaka vs D.Venkatesan on 7 July, 2023
Crl.R.C.No.1204 of 2023
and Crl.M.P.No.9473 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.07.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA
Crl.R.C.No.1204 of 2023
and Crl.M.P.No.9473 of 2023
M.Kanaka ... Petitioner
Vs.
D.Venkatesan ... Respondent
Prayer : Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 & 401 of Criminal
Procedure Code to set aside the conviction imposed in the judgment
dated 25.04.2023 made in Crl.A.No.198 of 2022 on the file of the learned
IV Additional District Sessions Court Erode District at Bhavani
confirming the conviction imposed in judgment dated 26.09.2022 made
in S.T.C.No.1405 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate
No.1, Bhavani.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Senthilkumar
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the
judgement passed by the IV Additional District and Sessions Court,
Erode District at Bhavani in Crl.A.No.198 of 2022 whereby the accused
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1204 of 2023
and Crl.M.P.No.9473 of 2023
was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of one year and pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- within a
period of three months, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for
three months.
2.The case of the complainant is that the accused who is his
friend and is running a Tea & Coffee bar borrowed a sum of
Rs.2,50,000/-, to meet her urgent family and business expenses, from the
complainant and assured that she would repay the same within two
months. In order to discharge the debt, the present revision
petitioner/accused issued a cheque bearing No.000115 dated 14.09.2018
(Ex.P1) drawn on Karur Vysya Bank, Bhavani Branch. When the
complainant presented the said cheque for collection through his banker,
namely, Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank, Bhavani Branch, the same was
returned on 15.09.2018 with an endorsement "Funds Insufficient".
Though the respondent/complainant approached the revision petitioner
on several occasions in person and also over phone, the revision
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1204 of 2023
and Crl.M.P.No.9473 of 2023
petitioner / accused did not make good the payment. Therefore, the
respondent / complainant issued a statutory notice dated 22.09.2018
(Ex.P4) to the revision petitioner and the same was received by her on
25.09.2018 as is seen from the registered postal acknowledgement card
(Ex.P5) and thereafter, the revision petitioner / accused issued a reply
(Ex.P7) which according to the complainant contained false allegations.
In the reply notice (Ex.P7), the revision petitioner / accused had
requested the complainant to send the original cheque for perusal and
when the photostat copy of the same was sent by the complainant, she
sent another reply notice dated 04.10.2018 (Ex.P10) stating that she does
not know the complainant.
3. Thereafter, the complainant filed the private complaint under
Section 200 Cr.P.C before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Bhavani in
S.T.C.No.1405/2018. Notice was issued to the revision petitioner /
accused for her appearance. Copies of the records were furnished to her
under under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and when the accused was questioned
with regard to the substance of the allegation levelled against her, she
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1204 of 2023
and Crl.M.P.No.9473 of 2023
denied the same and the case was posted for trial. The complainant
examined himself as PW.1 and two other witnesses and marked Ex.P1 to
Ex.P10. The accused was questioned under Section 313 (i) (b) Cr.P.C.
with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence
against her. The accused denied having committed the offence. However,
no oral / documentary was adduced on her side.
4.After analysing the evidence on record, the learned trial court
judge found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act and convicted and sentenced the revision
petitioner as stated above. Aggrieved over the same, the revision
petitioner/accused filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.198/2022 before IV
Additional District and Sessions Court, Erode District. The learned First
Appellate Court after analysing the oral / documentary evidence adduced
on both sides had confirmed the judgement passed by the trial judge.
5.Heard Mr.N.Senthilkumar, learned counsel for the revision
petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1204 of 2023
and Crl.M.P.No.9473 of 2023
6.It is seen from the records that the revision petitioner/accused
did not deny the signature on the cheque (Ex.P1). Therefore, the
presumption under Sections 118 & 139 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act that the cheque was issued for consideration holds good. In the
instant case, the revision petitioner/accused did not adduce any
acceptable evidence to show that she did not receive any amount from
the complainant. The plea taken by the accused during the trial is that
there was a chit transaction between her and the complainant and that the
present cheque was issued as a security for the same. However, it is
seen from the reply notice dated 25.09.2018 (Ex.P7) that this plea was
not at all taken by the accused. On the other hand, she had insisted the
complainant to send the original cheque for perusal and when the xerox
copy of the cheque was sent to the accused, she sent a reply notice dated
04.10.2018 (Ex.P10) in which it is stated that she does not know the
complainant. Moreover, during the course of the trial, she had stated that
there was a chit transaction between her and the complainant and that the
cheque in question was issued to the complainant as a security. Thus,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1204 of 2023
and Crl.M.P.No.9473 of 2023
the accused had taken different stands and this aspect was taken into
account by both the Courts below. The complainant had also pressed into
service the original cheque (Ex.P1) and the evidence of PW1 to PW3 are
cogent and the presumption under Sections 118 & 139 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act was not at all rebutted by the revision petitioner /
accused by way of adducing any acceptable evidence. Hence, I do not
see any reason to interfere. The judgements passed by the Courts below
do not warrant any interference by this Court.
7.In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
i. The judgment dated 25.04.2023 passed in Crl.A.No.198 of 2022
on the file of the learned IV Additional District Sessions Court
Erode District at Bhavani and the judgment dated 26.09.2022
passsed in S.T.C.No.1405 of 2018 on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.1, Bhavani, are confirmed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1204 of 2023
and Crl.M.P.No.9473 of 2023
ii. The revision petitioner/accused shall surrender before the Judicial
Magistrate No.1, Bhavani, within 15 days from the date of receipt
of copy of this order, failing which, the Trial Court shall take
steps to secure her for undergoing the sentence.
07.07.2023
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-Speaking order
mtl
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1204 of 2023
and Crl.M.P.No.9473 of 2023
R. HEMALATHA, J.
mtl
To
1.The IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Erode District at
Bhavani
2. The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Bhavani.
3.The Section Officer,
Criminal Section, High Court, Madras.
Crl.R.C.No.1204 of 2023
and Crl.M.P.No.9473 of 2023
07.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
