Madras High Court
S.Meenakshi Ammal vs K.Mohan on 3 January, 2024
Author: R.Hemalatha
Bench: R. Hemalatha
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.227 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 03.01.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.227 of 2019
S.Meenakshi Ammal ... Petitioner
vs.
K.Mohan ... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 read with Section
401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records pertaining to
the Judgment and Orders dated 20.02.2019 passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil in C.A.No.27 of 2015
confirming the Judgment and Orders dated 19.05.2015 passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court) No.I, Nagercoil in C.C.No.
106 of 2012 and set aside the same.
For Petitioner :Mr.N.Dilip Kumar
For Respondent :Mr.V.M.Balamohan Thampi
ORDER
Challenging the Judgment and Orders dated 20.02.2019 passed
by the learned Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil in C.A.No.27 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2015, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner /
accused.
2. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner is referred to as
the accused and the respondent is referred to as the complainant.
3. The brief facts of the case of the complainant are as follows.
3.1. The accused borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the
complainant on 24.08.2005 to meet out his family needs and to improve
his business and handed over a post dated Cheque bearing No.373672
dated 04.02.2006 drawn on State Bank of Travancore, Nagercoil Branch
to the complainant. When the complainant presented the said Cheque for
collection through his banker viz., Canara Bank, K.P.Road Branch, the
same was returned for the reasons 'insufficient funds' and 'proprietor not
mentioned'. Thereafter, the complainant issued a legal notice dated
27.02.2006 to the accused demanding the latter to make good the
payment. The accused after receiving the statutory notice sent a reply
dated 13.03.2006, which according to the complainant contained false
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
allegations. The complainant after sending a rejoinder dated 18.03.2006,
filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (hereinafter referred as 'Cr.P.C.') before the Judicial Magistrate
(Fast Track Court) No.1, Nagercoil in C.C.No.106 of 2012 against the
accused for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act (hereinafter referred as 'NI Act').
3.2. The learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the
offence under Section 138 of NI Act and issued summons to the accused
under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. On the appearance of the accused, copies
of the records were furnished to him under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. and
when he was questioned with regard to substance of accusation, he denied
the offence and hence, the case was posted for trial. The complainant
examined himself and and one another witness and marked Ex.P1 to
Ex.P11. Thereafter, the accused was questioned with regard to the
circumstances appearing in evidence against him under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C. and he denied of having committed any offence. However, the
accused did not examine any witness on his side. The learned Judicial
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Magistrate after analysing the oral and documentary evidence adduced on
both sides, held that the accused is guilty of the offence under Section 138
of NI Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period
of six months and to pay fine of Rs.2,00,000/-, in default to pay the fine
amount, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The
entire fine amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was directed to be paid to the
complainant. Aggrieved over the Judgment dated 19.05.2015 passed by
the learned Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court) No.I, Nagercoil, the
accused filed an appeal before the Sessions Court, Kanyakumari at
Nagercoil in Crl.A.No.27 of 2015.
3.3. The learned Sessions Judge vide his Judgment dated
22.02.2019 confirmed the Judgment passed by the Trial Court and
dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved over the same, the present Criminal
Revision Case is filed.
4. Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
revision petitioner raised the following grounds.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(i) The Cheque was presented in torn condition.
(ii) The name of the proprietorship concern was not indicated in
the Cheque.
(iii) There is a material alteration in the cheque.
(iv) The seal of the JJ Fabricators has not been affixed on the
Cheque.
(v) Since the Cheque number and the other details are not
mentioned in the statutory notice, the same is invalid.
5. Per contra, Mr.V.M.Balamohan Thampi, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent contended that both the Courts below after
analysing the oral and documentary evidence had concurrently held that
the accused is guilty of the offence under Section 138 of NI Act and
therefore interference by this Court is not warranted.
6. At the outset, it may be observed that the accused had
admitted his signature on the Cheque. It was also admitted that the
Cheque was signed by the accused in her individual capacity and not on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
behalf of JJ fabricators which is a proprietorship concern. In any event, it
is settled law that proprietor and proprietorship concern are one and the
same. A perusal of the records shows that there is no material alteration
on the Cheque and both the Courts had given a concurrent factual finding
in this regard also. Though there are two reasons mentioned in the
Cheque Return Memo, it is to be pointed out that the Cheque was
returned for the reason 'insufficient funds'. In this regard, the complainant
had examined the Manager of the Bank as PW2, who had affirmed that
the accused on the date of the Cheque did not have sufficient funds in his
account. It is not the case of the accused that he had several transactions
with the complainant and therefore the failure to indicate the Cheque
number and other details in the statutory notice cannot be said to have
prejudiced the accused. This aspect has also been dealt with in detail by
both the Courts below.
7. When the accused had admitted his signature on the Cheque,
there is a presumption under Section 118 of NI Act, that the Cheque is
supported by consideration unless the contrary is proved. In the instant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
case, the accused had not adduced any acceptable evidence to show that
he did not borrow money from the complainant. Another contention of
the accused was that the Cheque was in torn condition. If the Cheque was
in torn condition, the Bank would not have received the same. In fact, the
Bank had accepted the Cheque when it was sent for collection and
thereafter, it was returned dishonoured for the reason 'insufficient funds'.
Both the Courts below had analysed all the aspects of the case and the
accused also did not state anything to substantiate his contentions while
he was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. In such circumstances, I
do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings rendered
by both the Courts below.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
03.01.2024
mbi
NCC: Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Speaking/Non-Speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.HEMALATHA, J.
mbi
03.01.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
