Madras High Court
Nirmala vs V.Saradha on 27 March, 2023
Crl.O.P.No.3618 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.03.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Crl.O.P.No.3618 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P.No.2134 of 2021
Nirmala
...Petitioner
-Vs-
1.V.Saradha
2.State rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
Coimbatore ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, to set aside the order dated 08.01.2021 made in
Crl.M.P.No.91 of 2020 in C.A.No.393 of 2019 on the file of the I
Additional District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manokaran
For R1 : No appearance
For R2 : Mr.A.Damodaran,
Additional Public Prosecutor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
Crl.O.P.No.3618 of 2021
ORDER
The petitioner challenges the orders passed in Crl.M.P.No.91 of
2020 in C.A.No.393 of 2019 by the I Additional Sessions Court,
Coimbatore, refusing to allow the petitioner's application under Section
391 of Cr.P.C.
2.The petitioner faced trial in C.C.No.608 of 2017 on the file of
the Judicial Magistrate Court – II, Coimbatore and convicted for the
offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for a period of six months and was directed to pay
a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation to the 1st respondent herein by
the judgment dated 30.10.2019. The petitioner had preferred an appeal
and had filed the petition under Section 391 Cr.P.C on 24.08.2020.
3.It is the case of the petitioner that she could not depose before
the trial Court as she was unable to travel from Trichy to Coimbatore due
to floods. However, the learned Judicial Magistrate had closed the
evidence on the side of the defence and passed the judgment against her.
She had further stated in the petition that, since there is a presumption,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.3618 of 2021
the burden is on her to rebut the said presumption under the Negotiable
Instruments Act.
4.The 1st respondent had filed the counter stating that the petitioner
had marked Exs.D1 to D5; that the application filed by the petitioner
under Section 315 of Cr.P.C., was allowed by the Trial Court; but the
petitioner had not availed of the said opportunity for more than three
occasions.
5.The learned I Additional Sessions Judge, dismissed the
petitioner's application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. The learned I
Additional Sessions Judge, had observed that the petition filed by the
petitioner was bereft of particulars and no reason was given by her
justifying the application under Section 391 Cr.P.C.
6.This Court finds that sufficient opportunity was given to the
petitioner during the trial to examine herself. The trial Court had granted
three adjournments for her examination and hence the petitioner's case
that she was not given sufficient opportunity cannot be accepted. Further
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.3618 of 2021
this Court also finds that the order passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore, rejecting the petition filed by the
petitioner does not suffer any infirmity, since the petitioner has not been
able to show that as to what is the nature of additional evidence that she
proposes to adduce. This court also finds that she had marked Exs.D1 to
D5 before the trial Court while cross-examining the complainant / 1st
respondent herein.
6.For all the above reasons, this Court is not inclined to interfere
with the order passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Coimbatore in Crl.M.P.No.91 of 2020 in C.A.No.393 of 2019
dated 08.01.2021. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is
dismissed. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
is closed.
27.03.2023
smv
Internet: Yes
Index : Yes/No
Speaking/Non Speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.3618 of 2021
To,
The office of the Public Prosecutor,
Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.3618 of 2021
SUNDER MOHAN,J.
smv
Crl.O.P.No.3618 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P.No.2134 of 2021
27.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
