Madras High Court

D.Muthulakshmi vs P.Jagadambal on 1 September, 2023

                                                                                   Crl.R.C.No.923 of 2023
                                                                              and Crl.M.P.No.7543 of 2023


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED : 01.09.2023

                                                      CORAM

                              THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA

                                             Crl.R.C.No.923 of 2023
                                                      and
                                             Crl.M.P.No.7543 of 2023

                     D.Muthulakshmi                                       ... Petitioner
                                                           Vs.
                     P.Jagadambal                                         ... Respondent

                     Prayer : Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of Criminal
                     Procedure Code to call for the records relating to the judgment passed by
                     the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur in Crl.A.No.27/2019
                     dated 17.03.2021 dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment
                     dated 30.01.2019 in C.C.No.136/2010 passed by the learned Judicial
                     Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur.



                                          For Petitioner         : Ms.S.Vasanthi
                                          For Respondent         : Mr.D.R.Arunkumar




                     Page 1 of 9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                      Crl.R.C.No.923 of 2023
                                                                                 and Crl.M.P.No.7543 of 2023




                                                          ORDER

Challenge in this revision is made to the judgement and orders

passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur in

C.A.No.27/2019 confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the

learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Udumalpet in C.C.No.136/2010.

2.The case of the complainant in a nutshell is as follows :

The revision petitioner/accused borrowed a sum of

Rs.3,50,000/- from the complainant on 05.11.2009 for her urgent family

needs. She assured that she would repay the same within a month. In

order to discharge the liability, the present revision petitioner/accused

issued a cheque bearing No.693482 dated 09.12.2009 (Ex.P1) drawn on

City Union Bank, Udumalpet Branch for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- to the

respondent/complainant. When the complainant presented the said

cheque for collection through his banker, viz., the Indian Bank,

Udumalpet Branch, the cheque was returned on 12.12.2009 (Ex.P2) with

an endorsement "Funds Insufficient". Therefore, the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.923 of 2023 and Crl.M.P.No.7543 of 2023

respondent/complainant issued a legal notice dated 27.01.2010 (Ex.P4)

directing the revision petitioner to make good the payment within a

period of 15 days. Though the revision petitioner/accused received the

said legal notice on 28.01.2010 as is seen from the postal

acknowledgement card (Ex.P5), she did not come forward to pay the

amount due under the cheque and did not also send any reply to the

notice received by her.

3.Therefore, the complainant filed a private complaint before

the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Udumalpet under Section 200 Cr.P.C.

against the present revision petitioner for the offence punishable under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act) in

C.C.No.136/2010. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Udumalpet took

cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act (N.I. Act) and issued summons to the accused/revision

petitioner and on her appearance, furnished copies of records under

Section 207 Cr.P.C. When the revision petitioner/accused was questioned

with regard to the substance of accusation made against her, she pleaded

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.923 of 2023 and Crl.M.P.No.7543 of 2023

not guilty and the case was therefore posted for trial.

4.The complainant examined himself and marked Ex.P1 to

Ex.P5. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.,

with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence

against her, the accused denied of having committed any offence. She

examined herself as DW1 and one another witness. However, no

documentary evidence was adduced on her side. During the pendency of

C.C.No.136/2010, the complainant died and therefore, his wife was

impleaded as a legal heir of the complainant.

5.After analysing the evidence on record, the learned trial court

judge found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act, convicted and sentenced her as detailed

hereunder.


                                  Offences under which
                      S.No.                                              Sentence
                                        convicted
                          1       Section 138 of N.I. Simple imprisonment for six months and
                                  Act                 to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                   Crl.R.C.No.923 of 2023
                                                                              and Crl.M.P.No.7543 of 2023



                                  Offences under which
                      S.No.                                            Sentence
                                        convicted
                                                         compensation to the complainant
                                                         u/s.357 Cr.P.C., in default, to undergo
                                                         simple imprisonment for three months.

6.Aggrieved over the same, the revision petitioner/accused

filed an appeal in C.A.No.27/2019 before the Principal Sessions Court,

Tiruppur. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur after

analysing the oral / documentary evidences adduced on both sides

confirmed the judgement passed by the Trial Court Judge, as against

which the present criminal revision is filed.

7.It is seen from the records that the original complainant

examined himself on 23.03.2011 and died after three years i.e. on

04.04.2014. The trial court judge in his judgment dated 30.01.2019 had

observed that though the complainant was present in the court for 16

hearings, the accused did not utilise the opportunity to cross examine the

complainant. The accused had deposed that the impugned cheque was

issued to the complainant only as a security for the chit transaction

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.923 of 2023 and Crl.M.P.No.7543 of 2023

conducted by him and that the same has been misused by him. However,

no acceptable evidence was adduced to substantiate the same. The

evidence of Geetha (DW2) is that the impugned cheque was issued only

as a security for the chit transaction between the complainant and the

accused and that the complainant is demanding higher rate of interest.

The trial court judge had disbelieved the version of DW2 on the ground

that the DW2 had deposed on the same lines in favour of the present

revision petitioner/accused in another case filed under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act.

8.Ms.S.Vasanthi, learned counsel for the revision petitioner

contended that the cheque was subsequently filled up and that the

accused had handed over only a signed blank cheque to the complainant.

Even assuming that this contention is true, Section 20 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act will come into operation which reads thus :

“20. Inchoate stamped instruments.—Where one person signs and delivers to another a paper stamped in accordance with the law relating to negotiable instruments

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.923 of 2023 and Crl.M.P.No.7543 of 2023

then in force in 1[India], and either wholly blank or having written thereon an incomplete negotiable instrument, he thereby gives prima facie authority to the holder thereof to make or complete, as the case may be, upon it a negotiable instrument, for any amount specified therein and not exceeding the amount covered by the stamp. The person so signing shall be liable upon such instrument, in the capacity in which he signed the same, to any holder in due course for such amount; provided that no person other than a holder in due course shall recover from the person delivering the instrument anything in excess of the amount intended by him to be paid thereunder.”

9.Both the courts below had concurrently held that there is an

existing legally enforceable debt and that the accused did not rebut the

presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In

fact, both the Courts below had analysed the entire evidence on record

and I therefore do not see any reason to interfere with the same.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.923 of 2023 and Crl.M.P.No.7543 of 2023

10.In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. No

costs. Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is

closed.

i. The judgment dated 17.03.2021 passed in C.A.No.27/2019 on the

file of the Principal Sessions Court, Tiruppur and the orders dated

30.01.2019 passed in C.C.No.136/2010 on the file of the Judicial

Magistrate Court No.1, Udumalpet, are confirmed.

ii. The revision petitioner/accused shall surrender before the Judicial

Magistrate No.1, Udumalpet, within 15 days from the date of

receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the Trial Court shall

take steps to secure her for undergoing the sentence.