Madras High Court
Raja vs B.Rajan on 15 June, 2023
Crl.R.C.No.896 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 15.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.R.C.No.896 of 2020
and Crl.M.P.No.6301 of 2020
Raja ... Petitioner
Vs.
B.Rajan ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision case has been filed under Section 397 r/w
401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the judgment passed in C.C.No.86 of 2017
dated 22.09.2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court,
Magistrate Level at Ambattur confirmed in judgment passed in
C.A.No.152 of 2017 dated 27.02.2020 on the file of the I Additional
District and Session Judge, Thiruvallur.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Muruganantham
For Respondent : Mr.Jeremiah Gregory John
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.896 of 2020
ORDER
This revision petition is directed as against the concurrent
findings of the Courts below holding the accused guilty for issuance of
two cheques each for Rs.7,50,000/- without funds in his accused. He was
punished under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to
undergo eight months simple imprisonment and to pay compensation of
Rs.15,00,000/-, in default one month simple imprisonment.
2. This matter has been adjourned twice in the recent past on
21.04.2023 and 08.06.2023. It was subsequently adjourned today. When
the matter taken up today for consideration, the learned counsel
appearing for the revision petitioner states that he have not got any
instructions from his client. Therefore, this Court had no other option
except to peruse the records and pass order after hearing the learned
counsel appearing for the respondent Mr. Jeremiah Gregory John, who is
present.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.896 of 2020
3. Private complaint has been filed by the respondent herein
against the revision petitioner alleging that a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was
advanced as loan to him on 10.05.2015. On receiving the money, the
accused gave a letter of confirmation regarding the receipt of
Rs.10,00,000/- and promised to repay it with 2% interest per month. To
discharge the said debt, two cheques bearing No.113594 & 113595 dated
20.09.2016 each for Rs.7,50,000/- were issued. But the said cheques, on
presentation, returned for want of fund. Hence the complaint under
Section 138 of NI Act.
4. The accused contested the complaint denying the liability as
found in the reply notice dated 22.10.2016 which is marked as Ex.P.8,
contending that the subject cheques were issued as a security and not for
discharge of existing liability. Both the Courts below declined to accept
the said defence that the evidence for the accused not sufficient to rebut
the presumption of existing debt. Merely alleging that the cheques were
given as security without proper and supporting evidence, the
presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act doesn't get rebutted.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.896 of 2020
5. The concurrent findings of the Courts below challenged in
this revision petition on the ground that the trial Court's judgment is
perverse and more perverse the lower appellate Court's judgment which
was passed without affording any opportunity to the accused/appellant.
The next contention of the accused is that the complainant had no fund to
advance sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as contented in the complaint and the two
cheques which are the subject matter of the complaint did not correlate
with the alleged undertaking letter dated 10.05.2014, marked as Ex.P.1.
6. This Court, on perusing the lower appellate Court order
passed on 27.02.2020 in Crl.A.No.152 of 2017, finds that the lower
appellate Court has formulated points for consideration and thereafter it
had discussed the evidence available on records. Regarding arguments of
the counsel, after hearing the counsel for the appellant, the lower
appellate Court had recorded that the respondent's counsel has not come
forward to advance arguments despite sufficient opportunities, hence the
averments in the complaint and the materials on records are taken as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.896 of 2020
arguments on behalf of the respondent and thereafter had dismissed the
appeal on merits based on the records.
7. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent is that the lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal in spite
of the respondent's counsel absence. This argument does not carry any
merits consideration, since the lower appellate Court had recorded the
said fact and had passed order on merits after considering the evidence
on record. It is not the case of the revision petitioner that he as an
appellant was not afforded opportunity.
8. The next ground raised in the revision is that the
complainant has not proved the source of income. Having admitted the
execution of the security letter, which is marked as Ex.P.1, and the
cheques marked as Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.4, it is the burden of the accused to
rebut the presumption that it were not issued for the amount mentioned in
the cheque. In fact, the accused in his questioning under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C., admits the borrowing but restricted the borrowing as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.896 of 2020
Rs.2,00,000/- and not Rs.10,00,000/-. Since for want of evidence to
probablize the defence theory, the Courts below had drawn the
presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act and convicted the revision
petitioner and the same been confirmed by the lower appellate Court.
9. This Court finds no perversity or illegality or error in the
order passed by the Courts below. Hence the Revision Petition is
dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
15.06.2023
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-Speaking order
rts
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.896 of 2020
To
1. The I Additional District and Session Judge,
Thiruvallur.
2. The Judicial Magistrate,
Fast Track Court,
Magistrate Level,
Ambattur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.896 of 2020
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J
rts
Crl.R.C.No.896 of 2020
and Crl.M.P.No.6301 of 2020
15.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
