T.V.Ashwin vs C. Remerin
2024 Latest Caselaw 20369 Mad

Madras High Court

T.V.Ashwin vs C. Remerin on 28 October, 2024

Author: G.Jayachandran

Bench: G.Jayachandran

                                                                               Crl.O.P.No.26817 of 2024

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATED : 28.10.2024

                                                          CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

                                                  Crl.O.P.No.26817 of 2024
                     T.V.Ashwin                                                       ... Petitioner
                                                             Vs.

                     C. Remerin                                                     ... Respondent

                     Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 BNSS,
                     pleased to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.2510 of 2024 in
                     C.A.No. 75 of 2024 in respect of deposit of 20% fine amount, dated
                     20.09.2024, on the file of Session Judge, Mahila Court, Chengalpattu.

                                        For Petitioner    : Ms.D.Jayapriya

                                                         ORDER

The petitioner herein is an accused in C.C.No.108 of 2012 on the

file of the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level),

Alandur. The trial Court has found the petitioner guilty for issuing the

cheque for Rs.40 lakhs which was returned with an endorsement

'Account closed'. The trial Court after considering the facts of the case

and evidence held the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under

Section 138 of N.I.Act and sentenced him to undergo 6 months Simple

Imprisonment and directed to pay a fine of Rs.40 lakhs which has to be

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

taken as compensation to the complainant.

2. Aggrieved by the judgment, the petitioner/accused has filed

appeal before the Sessions Court, Chengalpattu and same was taken on

file in Crl.A.No.75 of 2024. Along with the appeal, the petitioner has

sought for suspension of sentence. The lower appellate Court granted

suspension of sentence and directed the petitioner herein to deposit Rs.8

lakhs being the 20% of the compensation amount. Being aggrieved by

the said condition, the present petition is filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused

submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had categorically held that while

invoking Section 148 of N.I.Act, directing the appellant to deposit

compensation amount, the Court shall record the reason in the order why

the maximum of 20% to be deposited. In the absence of reasons, the

order to deposit 20% of compensation amount is liable to be set aside.

The learned counsel also on merits try to impress upon this Court that the

appellant has good chance of success in the appeal and therefore, the

appellant should not be burden with condition to deposit 20% of the

compensation amount.

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

4. The perusal of the impugned order as well as the judgment

which is now challenged before the lower appellate Court, this Court

finds that admittedly the petitioner forced the complainant for receiving

the loan of Rs.20 lakhs by mortgaging his property, he neither redeem the

mortgage nor paid the debt. The subject cheque issued by the petitioner

for discharge of the liability. However, he claims that it was not issued to

discharge of liability, but as security at the time of getting loan. Further,

he contends that even according to the complainant, the petitioner

requested not to present the cheque. However, he has presented the

cheque which was issued several years ago when the accused has

maintained the account at ICICI bank, Kovilampakkam branch. On the

date of presentation of the cheque, the account was not in existence and it

was closed.

5. Thus, the cheque issued by the petitioner/accused has

intended not to clear the debt and therefore, the offence under Section

138 of N.I.Act is clearly attracted. Since the transaction is of the year

2017 and to discharge the said debt, cheque been given and bounced, the

lower appellate Court had thought fit that 20% of the compensation

amount has to be deposited for suspending the sentence. When there is a

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

Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.

rpl

justifiable reason though not placed on record to direct the appellant to

deposit 20% of the compensation amount as per Section 148 of N.I.Act,

same cannot be faulted or interfered.

6. Hence this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

However, the perusal of the impugned order indicates that the time for

depositing 20% of the compensation amount not been specified in spite

of time of 60 days prescribed under the Statute (i.e.,) Section 148 of

N.I.Act. Therefore, it is clarified that the petitioner herein shall deposit

20% of the compensation amount on or before 20.11.2024.

28.10.2024

Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No rpl

To The Session Judge, Mahila Court, Chengalpattu.

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