Madras High Court
Palanisamy vs M/S.N.R.K. Marketing on 7 March, 2023
Crl.R.C.Nos.587, 588, 589 & 590 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
Crl.R.C.Nos.587, 588, 589 & 590 of 2017
and Crl.M.P.Nos.5202, 5203, 5204, 5205, 5206, 5207, 5208, 5210,
8807, 8808, 8809 & 8810 of 2017
Palanisamy ... Petitioner
in all Crl.R.Cs
vs.
M/s.N.R.K. Marketing,
Represented by its Partner,
Thiru L.Navaneetham,
27/4, Panthadi 5th Street,
Madurai – 625 001 ... Respondent
in all Crl.R.Cs
Prayer in Crl.R.C.No.587 of 2017: Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397
r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the records on the
file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri in
Crl.A.No.42 of 2015 dated 30.11.2015 filed against the judgment and Sentence
passed in S.T.C.No.219 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate (Fast
Track Court), Hosur dated 30.04.2015 and set aside the judgment rendered in
Crl.A.No.42 of 2015 on 30.11.2015.
Prayer in Crl.R.C.No.588 of 2017: Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397
r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the records on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1 of 10
Crl.R.C.Nos.587, 588, 589 & 590 of 2017
file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri in
Crl.A.No.41 of 2015 dated 30.11.2015 filed against the judgment and Sentence
passed in S.T.C.No.217 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate (Fast
Track Court), Hosur dated 30.04.2015 and set aside the judgment rendered in
Crl.A.No.41 of 2015 on 30.11.2015.
Prayer in Crl.R.C.No.589 of 2017: Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397
r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the records on the
file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri in
Crl.A.No.40 of 2015 dated 30.11.2015 filed against the judgment and Sentence
passed in S.T.C.No.216 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate (Fast
Track Court), Hosur dated 30.04.2015 and set aside the judgment rendered in
Crl.A.No.40 of 2015 on 30.11.2015.
Prayer in Crl.R.C.No.590 of 2017: Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397
r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the records on the
file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri in
Crl.A.No.39 of 2015 dated 04.01.2016 filed against the judgment and Sentence
passed in S.T.C.No.218 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate (Fast
Track Court), Hosur dated 30.04.2015 and set aside the judgment rendered in
Crl.A.No.39 of 2015 on 04.01.2016.
For Petitioner : Ms.Divya Preathika
in all Crl.R.Cs for M/s.R.Bharathkumar
For Respondent : Mr.Naveen Infant
in all Crl.R.Cs Legal aid Counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.2 of 10
Crl.R.C.Nos.587, 588, 589 & 590 of 2017
ORDER
The same parties are involved in all these four criminal revision petitions.
The issue involved is also common except for the fact that four independent
cheques were issued by the petitioner/accused to the respondent and as a result,
four individual complaints were filed, which ultimately ended up with four
separate revision petitions. Hence, a common order is passed in all these four
revision petitions.
2.The petitioner in all these four revision petitions was convicted for
offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In Crl.R.C.No.587
of 2017, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment
and to pay a compensation of a sum of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousands
only) to the respondent. In Crl.R.C.No.588 of 2017, the petitioner was sentenced
to undergo six months simple imprisonment and to pay a compensation of a sum
of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousands only) to the respondent. In
Crl.R.C.No.589 of 2017, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo six months
simple imprisonment and to pay a compensation of a sum of Rs.52,879/- (Rupees
Fifty Two Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy Nine only) to the respondent and
in Crl.R.C.No.590 of 2017, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo six months
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.587, 588, 589 & 590 of 2017
simple imprisonment and to pay a compensation of a sum of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees
Sixty Thousands only) to the respondent.
3.The respondent and his wife were carrying on a partnership business
under the name and style of NRK Marketing. They were dealing with the sale of
industrial cables. During the course of their business, the petitioner had purchased
the goods on credit basis. The petitioner was due and payable a total sum of
Rs.2,38,019/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Thirty Eight Thousand and rupees Nineteen
only). In discharge of the said liability, the petitioner issued four post dated
cheques. When these cheques were presented by the respondent for collection
with his bankers, the same was returned unpaid with an endorsement “Insufficient
funds”. Pursuant to the same, the respondent issued a statutory notice. In spite of
receiving the statutory notice, the petitioner neither replied for the same nor paid
the cheque amount. As a result, separate complaints were filed for the four
cheques that were issued by the petitioner.
4.Both the Courts below came to a conclusion that the respondent has
established the legally enforceable liability and hence, legal presumption under
Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was applied in favour of the
respondent and it was further held that the petitioner failed to rebut the legal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.587, 588, 589 & 590 of 2017
presumption. In view of the same, the petitioner was convicted in each case for
offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and was sentenced
separately in each complaint. The same was also confirmed by the Appellate
Court. Aggrieved by the same, these criminal revision cases have been filed
before this Court.
5.Heard Ms.Divya Preathika, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and Mr.Naveen Infant, learned Legal aid Counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondent.
6.The main defence that was taken by the petitioner in these criminal
revision cases is that blank cheques were issue as security and the same has been
misused by the respondent. The further ground taken by the petitioner is that there
was no existing legally enforceable debt or liability. It was further contended that
the person who was representing the partnership Firm did not have the proper
authorization to represent the Firm and hence, the very complaint is not
maintainable.
7.Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence came to a categoric
conclusion that the petitioner has not disputed the signature found in the cheques.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.587, 588, 589 & 590 of 2017
That apart, there was a transaction between the petitioner and the respondent. The
petitioner had issued the cheques for goods that were purchased on credit basis. In
view of the same, the legal presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act was applied in favour of the respondent and it was held that the
petitioner failed to rebut the said presumption.
8.In the considered view of this Court, the findings rendered by both the
Courts below in each case, does not suffer from any perversity and there is no
ground to interfere with the same.
9.When the matter came up for hearing on 23.12.2022, this Court passed
the following order:
The petitioner had a business transaction with the
complainant and in discharge of the business liability he issued four
cheques roughly around for a sum of Rs.2,40,000/-. All the cheques
were dis-honoured. Thereafter, a private complaint under Section
138 of Negotiable Instruments Act filed before the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.I, Madurai in S.T.C.Nos.216, 217,
218 and 219 of 2014. The petitioner suffered conviction in all the
four cases. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the
Session Court in C.A.Nos.40, 41, 39 and 42 of 2015, respectively.
These appeals were dismissed by the lower Appellate Court, against
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.587, 588, 589 & 590 of 2017
which, the present revisions have been filed.
2. On 27.04.2017, this Court suspended the sentence imposed
on the petitioner on condition that the petitioner shall deposit 50% of
the cheque amounts. Hence, a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- was directed to
be deposited in two installments by order dated 24.07.2017. As per
the orders of this Court, a sum of Rs.60,000/- was paid by way of
demand draft on the same day and for payment of balance amount
of Rs.60,000/-, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought three
weeks time. Thereafter, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.40,000/- by
way of Demand Draft on 23.08.2017. So far, the petitioner has paid a
sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and the balance amount is yet to be paid.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner has to
pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- and he paid only Rs.40,000/-. In the event
of failure to make the payment, this Court observed that the
suspension of sentence shall stand automatically vacated without
any reference to this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
entire balance amount would be paid on or before 10.01.2023 and
also produce the proof of the same. In view of the same, the learned
counsel for the petitioner is directed to ensure the presence of the
petitioner before this Court on 10.01.2023. The learned counsel is
also directed to inform the respondent's counsel or the respondent
about the pendency of the above cases and ensure his presence on
that day.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.587, 588, 589 & 590 of 2017
10.When these cases were heard finally today, the learned counsel for the
petitioner produced the relevant documents to substantiate that already a sum of
Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) has been paid to the
respondent and only a balance of Rs.82,879/- (Rupees Eighty two thousand eight
hundred and seventy nine only) remains to be paid and the learned counsel sought
for some time. The counsel representing the respondent got the clarification from
the respondent and submitted that the petitioner has already paid a sum of
Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) by way of Demand Draft.
In view of the same, all these criminal revision cases are disposed of in the
following manner:
(a) The petitioner is directed to pay the balance amount of Rs.82,879/- (Rupees
Eighty two thousand eight hundred and seventy nine only) to the
respondent on or before 21.03.2023.
(b) If the petitioner pays the amount as directed in clause (a), the offence shall
stand compounded and the order of conviction and sentence passed against
the petitioner in each case, will stand set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.587, 588, 589 & 590 of 2017
(c) If the petitioner fails to pay the balance amount as directed in clause (a), the
petitioner shall surrender before the Trial Court on 23.03.2023 to undergo
the sentence in each case and
(d) If the petitioner fails to surrender as provided in clause (c), the Trial Court
shall take steps to secure the petitioner and to send him to jail to undergo
the remaining period of sentence in each case.
11.These criminal revision cases are disposed of accordingly. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
12Post these cases under the caption 'For Reporting Compliance' on
23.03.2023.
07.03.2023
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No
ssr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.587, 588, 589 & 590 of 2017
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
ssr
To
1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri.
2.The Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court), Hosur.
Crl.R.C.Nos.587, 588, 589 & 590 of 2017
and Crl.M.P.Nos.5202, 5203, 5204, 5205, 5206, 5207, 5208, 5210,
8807, 8808, 8809 & 8810 of 2017
07.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
