Madras High Court
M/S.Karthick Raam Associates vs Veerammal on 27 March, 2023
Crl.R.C(MD)No.488 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 27.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C(MD)No.488 of 2019
and Crl.M.P(MD)No.7085 of 2020
1.M/s.Karthick Raam Associates,
No.41, Gomathipuram 3rd Street,
Sankarankovil,
Represented by Vijay Shankar.
2.Vijay Shankar,
Managing Partner,
M/s.Karthick Raam Associates,
No.41, Gomathipuram 3rd Street,
Sankarankovil. ... Petitioners/
Appellants/Accused
Vs.
1.Veerammal
2.S.Chitra
3.C.Manikandan
4.C.Ashok Kumar @ Pandi
5.R.Leela
6.C.Paramasarweshwaran ... Respondents/
Respondents/
L.Rs of the Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 read with
Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the entire
records pertaining to Crl.A.No.68 of 2013, dated 01.07.2019 on the
file of the learned Additional District Judge, Srivilliputhur, confirming
the Judgment passed in S.T.C.No.3168 of 2008 on the file of the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam and to set aside the same
by allowing the revision.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
Crl.R.C(MD)No.488 of 2019
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Thirunavukarasu
For Respondents : Mr.C.Jeganathan
for Mr.K.Rajeswaran
ORDER
This revision has been filed to set aside the order passed
in Crl.A.No.68 of 2013, dated 01.07.2019 on the file of the learned
Additional District Judge, Srivilliputhur, confirming the Judgment
passed in S.T.C.No.3168 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Rajapalayam.
2.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side
and perused the materials available on record.
3.The first petitioner is a company and the second
petitioner is an accused in the complaint lodged by the deceased
complainant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act. The respondents 1 to 6 are the legal
heirs of the deceased complainant.
4.The crux of the complaint is that the petitioners
approached the deceased complainant to construct a compound
wall, fine falls castle type (A type) and falls castle (B type).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.488 of 2019
Thereafter, both were agreed for the construction and the
petitioners agreed to pay the cost of construction amount on four
stages. The first stage amount of 25% will be paid on completion of
the plinth level, the second stage amount of 35% will be paid on
completion of the roof level, the third stage amount will be paid at
the rate of 15% on completion of plastering and the last and fourth
stage amount of Rs.25% will be paid on completion of the building.
All the conditions were agreed upon by both parties and started
construction. The total cost was fixed at Rs.84,32,453/- by both
parties. After payment of some amount, the petitioners failed to pay
the amount as agreed by them. Therefore, the deceased
complainant stopped the construction and issued notice thereby
calling upon the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.71,28,783/-.
However, the petitioners replied that they are liable to pay only a
sum of Rs.42,00,000/- for whatever the construction was put up by
the deceased complainant. In order to pay the said amount, the
petitioners issued cheque for a sum of Rs.42,00,000/- and the said
cheque was presented for collection, however, it was returned
'dishonoured' for the reason that the 'stop payment cheque'. After
causing statutory notice, the deceased complainant lodged the
complaint.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.488 of 2019
5.On the side of the deceased complainant, he himself
was examined as P.W.1 and one Thangaraj was examined as P.W.2
and marked Exs.P.1 to P.10 and on the side of the petitioners, they
marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.4.
6.On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the
trial Court found that the first petitioner is a company and further
the trial Court found the second petitioner guilty for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and
sentenced him to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment and also
imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default, he shall undergo three
months Simple Imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, the
petitioners preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.68 of 2013 on the file of
the learned Additional District Judge, Srivilliputhur and the same
was dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by
the trial Court. Hence, the Revision.
7.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
would submit that the deceased complainant failed to complete the
construction as agreed by them. While pending construction, they
paid a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- and while being so, the deceased
complainant claimed a sum of Rs.71,28,783/- for the construction
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.488 of 2019
they put up. After assessing the value of the building, which was
constructed by the deceased complainant, the petitioners issued a
reply notice and agreed to pay a sum of Rs.42,00,000/-. However, it
was dishonoured for the reason that the 'stop payment cheque'.
Thereafter, the entire work was entrusted to one Aathi Sivagnam on
condition that whatever consideration spent by the deceased
complainant to be paid by him. Accordingly, a sum of
Rs.10,00,000/- was paid to the deceased complainant, while
pending trial, the said document was also marked as Ex.P.3. At the
time of suspending the sentence, this Court directed the petitioners
to deposit a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- before the trial Court. The said
condition was duly complied with. Now, the petitioners are ready
and willing to pay the admitted amount as per the reply notice
issued by the petitioners. The respondents also agreed to receive
the same.
8.Considering the above submissions, the conviction and
sentence imposed by the Courts below is hereby set aside on
condition that the petitioners shall deposit a sum of Rs.22,00,000/-
to the credit of S.T.C.No.3168 of 2008 on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam, on or before 08.05.2023. On such
deposit, the respondents are permitted to withdraw the same
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.488 of 2019
including the amount, which was already deposited by the petitioner
while suspending their sentence. It is also made clear that the trial
Court is directed to permit the respondents to withdraw the said
amount without ordering any notice to the petitioners herein. If the
petitioners failed to comply with the said condition, the conviction
and sentence imposed by the Courts below are hereby restored
without any further reference to this Court and the trial Court is
directed to take appropriate steps to secure the petitioners in order
to serve out the remaining period of sentence.
9.This Criminal Revision Case is disposed of, with the
above direction. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
27.03.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
ps
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.488 of 2019
To
1.The Additional District Court,
Srivilliputhur.
2.The Judicial Magistrate,
Rajapalayam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.488 of 2019
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ps
Order made in
Crl.R.C(MD)No.488 of 2019
27.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
