Madras High Court
B.Charles vs Iyyadurai on 27 March, 2023
Crl.R.C(MD)No.656 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 27.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C(MD)No.656 of 2017
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.9877 and 9878 of 2017
B.Charles ... Petitioner/Appellant/Accused
Vs.
Iyyadurai ... Respondent/Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to the
Judgment dated 06.07.2011 made in Crl.A.No.29 of 2011 on the file of
the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No.1) Tirunelveli
and by confirming the Judgment dated 17.02.2011 made in C.C.No.179
of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Nanguneri,
Tirunelveli District and set aside the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.R.Anbarasu
For Respondent : Mr.K.Sathyasingh
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
Crl.R.C(MD)No.656 of 2017
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the
Judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No.29 of 2011, dated 06.07.2011,
on the file of the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No.
1) Tirunelveli by confirming the Judgment made in C.C.No.179 of 2008,
dated 17.02.2011 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court,
Nanguneri, Tirunelveli District.
2.The petitioner is an accused in the complaint lodged by the
respondent for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The crux of the
complainant is that on 09.12.2007, the petitioner borrowed a sum of
Rs.3,00,000/- for his urgent needs and assured that he will repay the
same within a period of one month. In order to repay the same, the
petitioner issued a cheque and the same was presented for collection.
However, it was returned as dishonored for the reason “funds
insufficient”. Hence, the respondent caused statutory notice to the
petitioner and on receipt of the same, the petitioner did not repay the said
amount. Hence, the complaint.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.656 of 2017
3.On the side of the respondent, he had examined himself as P.W.1
and exhibited four documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4. On the side of the
petitioner, no one was examined and no documents were marked.
4.On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court
found the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act
and sentenced him to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment. Aggrieved
by the same, the petitioner has preferred an appeal and the First Appellate
Court has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and
sentence imposed by the trial Court. Hence, the present revision.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the wife
of the respondent herein filed a suit as against the petitioner in O.S.No.71
of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Valliyoor. In the said suit, there was
a compromise effected by the parties and the respondent has executed a
compromise agreement, dated 27.02.2012. In the said agreement, the
respondent admitted that the entire loan amount was discharged by the
respondent and the wife of the respondent has also given an undertaking
to withdraw the suit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.656 of 2017
6.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit
that the petitioner has denied the said compromise agreement as if
entered into between the petitioner and the respondent herein. In fact, the
petitioner did not even file any appeal as against the conviction. Only
after filing the petition to execute conviction and sentence imposed by
the trial Court, the petitioner has filed the present revision with a delay of
1852 days. There was no compromise between the petitioner and the
respondent and the petitioner never settled any amount. In fact, he is also
taking immediate steps to file a complaint for forgery.
7.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
8.It is seen that the petitioner never denied the issuance of cheque
and the signature found therein. In order to repay the loan amount, which
was borrowed by him, the petitioner issued a cheque and it was marked
as Ex.P.1. On instructions, it was presented for collection and the same
was returned as dishonored with an endorsement “funds insufficient”.
Notice was caused by the respondent and the same was duly received.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.656 of 2017
They were marked as Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4. On receipt of the same, the
respondent did not send any reply and also failed to settle the amount.
Therefore, the respondent herein discharged his initial burden as
contemplated under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Pursuant to that, the cheque
was issued for illegally enforceable debt. However, the petitioner failed
to repay the same by examining any witnesses and also pay any
documents. In fact, after receipt of the statutory notice, the petitioner did
not even send any reply in order to rebut the presumption. Hence, both
the Courts below rightly convicted the petitioner for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Therefore, this Court finds no
infirmity or illegality in the orders passed by the Courts below.
9.Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
27.03.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
sji
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.656 of 2017
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
sji
To
1.The Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No.1),
Tirunelveli.
2.The Judicial Magistrate Court,
Nanguneri, Tirunelveli District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Order made in
Crl.R.C(MD)No.656 of 2017
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.9877 and 9878 of 2017
27.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
