N.Ravi vs S.Velayudham
2023 Latest Caselaw 12307 Mad

                                                                                   Crl.R.C.No.1551 of 2023



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATED : 12.09.2023

                                                         CORAM

                              THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA

                                                Crl.R.C.No.1551 of 2023

                     N.Ravi                                                ... Petitioner
                                                           Vs.
                     S.Velayudham                                          ... Respondent

                     Prayer : Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of Criminal
                     Procedure Code to set aside the judgment passed by the XXII Additional
                     City Civil Court Judge, Chennai in Crl.A.No.118/2022 dated 10.01.2023
                     dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment dated 17.06.2022 in
                     C.C.No.1901/2019 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast
                     Track Court No.IV, George Town, Chennai.
                                   For Petitioner      : Mr.V.Govindaraj
                                   For Respondent      : Mr.F.Wellington
                                                      ORDER

Challenge in this criminal revision case is made to the

judgement and orders passed by the learned XXII Additional City Civil

Court, Chennai in Crl.A.No.118/2022 in and by which the conviction and

sentence passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1551 of 2023

Court No.IV, George Town, Chennai, in C.C.No.1901/2019, was

confirmed.

2.The case of the complainant is that the revision

petitioner/accused borrowed a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- from the

complainant and issued a cheque bearing No.712796 dated 17.07.2019

(Ex.P2) for the said amount drawn on Canara Bank, Tondiarpet Branch,

Chennai in favour of the complainant. When the complainant presented

the cheque for collection on 18.07.2019 through his banker, viz., Karur

Vysya Bank, Main Branch, Chennai, the cheque was returned for the

reason 'Funds Insufficient' as is seen from the cheque Return Memo

dated 19.07.2019 (Ex.P3). Therefore, the complainant issued a legal

notice dated 29.07.2019 (Ex.P4) to the accused demanding the latter to

pay the amount due under the cheque. Though the said legal notice was

served on the accused on 30.09.2019 as is seen from the postal

acknowledgement card (Ex.P5), he did not come forward to make good

the payment. He did not also send a reply to the complainant.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1551 of 2023

3.The complainant therefore filed a private complaint before

the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.IV, George

Town, Chennai under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the

respondent/accused for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act) in C.C.No.1901/2019. The learned

Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.IV, George Town,

Chennai took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act) and issued summons to the

accused/respondent and on his appearance, furnished copies of records

under Section 207 Cr.P.C. When the respondent/accused was questioned

with regard to the substance of accusation made against him, he pleaded

not guilty and the case was therefore posted for trial.

4.The complainant examined himself as PW.1 and marked

Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. When the accused was questioned under Section 313

Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing in

evidence against him, the accused denied of having committed any

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1551 of 2023

offence. However, the accused did not adduce any oral / documentary

evidence on his side.

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 him as detailed

hereunder.

                                  Offences under which
                      S.No.                                              Sentence
                                        convicted
                                                      Simple imprisonment for three months

Section 138 of N.I. and to pay a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as

Act compensation to the complainant u/s.357(3) Cr.P.C., within one month.

6.Aggrieved over the same, the accused filed an appeal in

Crl.A.No.118/2022 before the XXII Additional City Civil Court,

Chennai. The learned XXII Additional City Civil Court Judge, Chennai,

after analysing the evidence on record, confirmed the findings recorded

by the Trial Court Judge and dismissed the appeal. Now the present

criminal revision is filed by the complainant seeking enhancement of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1551 of 2023

punishment.

7. Mr.V.Govindaraj, learned counsel for the revision petitioner

contended that though the cheque amount is Rs.25,00,000/- till date no

amount is paid by the accused to the complainant. He would further

contend that though the trial court directed the accused to pay the amount

within a period of one month, it was not complied with by the accused.

This was also brought to the notice of the Appellate Court by way of

filing a memo. According to him, the Appellate Court did not consider

the same as no direction was given to the accused to repay the cheque

amount. It is also his contention that when the amount is Rs.25,00,000/,-

both the Courts below had not sentenced the accused adequately and

therefore, sought for enhancement of sentence imposed on the accused.

8.Per contra, Mr.F.Wellington, learned counsel for the

respondent contended that the accused had already undergone

imprisonment for a period of three months and both the Courts below had

directed the accused to pay a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1551 of 2023

the complainant. According to him, the accused has no wherewithal to

pay the said amount. His specific contention is that sentence awarded by

both the Courts below cannot said to be disproportionate to the offence

committed by the accused.

9.A perusal of the memo filed by the revision petitioner before

the Appellate Court shows that the complainant had brought to the

knowledge of the Appellate Court about the non compliance of the orders

of the trial court by the accused. Though the memo is dated 27.09.2022

there is absolutely no reference about this memo in the judgement passed

by the learned XXII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

10.Be that as it may, both the Courts had found the accused

guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and

sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of

three months and to pay a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- towards compensation

under Section 357 Cr.P.C. to the complainant. The grievance of the

revision petitioner is that the accused did not pay even a single pie till

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1551 of 2023

date. If no amount is paid as per the directions of both the courts below,

the trial court has to initiate action under the Revenue Recovery Act by

invoking the Provisions of Section 431 Cr.P.C.

11.With the above observation, the Criminal Revision is

disposed of.

12.09.2023

Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order mtl

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1551 of 2023

R. HEMALATHA, J.

mtl

To

1.The XXII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.

2.The Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.IV, George Town, Chennai.

Crl.R.C.No.1551 of 2023

12.09.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis