Madras High Court
K.Pichandi vs G.Ilango on 10 September, 2024
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M. Nirmal Kumar
Crl.R.C.No.1505 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.R.C.No.1505 of 2024
and
Crl.M.P.No.12602 of 2024
1.K.Pichandi
2.M/s.Sree Venkateswara Traders,
Represented by its Proprietor K.Pichandi,
Block-1, Door No.686, Valayapathi Salai,
Mugappair West, Chennai – 600 037. ... Petitioners
Vs.
G.Ilango ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, praying to set aside the order dated 26.06.2024 made in
Crl.M.P.No.10 of 2024 in C.A.No.36 of 2022 on the file of learned II
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Poonamallee by allowing the
criminal revision petition.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Nandakumar
For Respondents : Mr.R.Sampath Kumar
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1505 of 2024
ORDER
This Criminal Revision has been filed seeking to set aside the order
dated 26.06.2024 made in Crl.M.P.No.10 of 2024 in C.A.No.36 of 2022 on
the file of learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Poonamallee.
2.The petitioner/accused was convicted by the trial Court in
C.C.No.211 of 2019 for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act (hereinafter referred as 'N.I. Act') and sentenced to undergo
11 months simple imprisonment and to pay double the cheque amount of
Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners
preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.36 of 2022 before the learned II Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur at Poonamallee, in which, they filed a
petition under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P.No.10 of 2024 seeking to
adduce additional evidence and mark the legal notice dated 20.08.2019,
which was not considered by the Lower Court and the petition was dismissed,
against which, the present revision is filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.The contention of the learned counsel for petitioners is that in the
legal notice dated 20.08.2019 issued by the respondent/complainant, the
respondent narrated the sequence of events, transaction between the
petitioners and respondent, obligations of the respondent and making of
payment through banks on various dates. It is an admitted position of the
respondent, it would be necessary to probabilise the petitioner's defense and
hence, the above petition has been filed, which the trial Court failed to
consider.
4.The learned counsel for respondent/complainant submitted that in
this case the respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act
against the petitioners on 30.03.2019. During trial, this legal notice dated
20.08.2019 issued, which is for the specific performance and not for a case
under Section 138 of N.I. Act., since already Section 138 N.I. Act case filed.
Notice was very much available with the petitioner and for what reason he
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
had not produced this notice in his defence. Having slept over it, now he
cannot make a claim that this document is required in his defence. He further
submitted that legal notice dated 20.08.2019 is only for specific performance.
After cognizance has been taken and cause of action arose under Section 138
of N.I. Act, the trial Court on the evidence had rightly convicted the
petitioners, against which, they preferred an appeal. The appeal is now at the
stage of final arguments. Just to protract the proceedings, the above petition
filed. The Lower Court considering the petition is not sustainable, dismissed
the petition and the same needs no interference.
5.Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the
materials, it is seen that in the legal notice dated 20.08.2019, it was recorded
that a case for offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act filed against the
petitioners on 30.03.2019 before learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track
Court (Magistrate Level), Ambattur in C.C.No.211 of 2019 and the trial
Court rendered a judgment for conviction on 08.03.2022 and thereafter
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appeal filed in C.A.No.36 of 2022. The final arguments of the appeal posted
on 18.09.2024. At this stage, invoking Section 391 of Cr.P.C. and seeking to
bring in evidence the notice dated 20.08.2019 is not required for deciding the
disposal of the appeal.
6.This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order
and hence, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently,
connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
10.09.2024
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
rsi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
rsi
To
1.The II Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Poonamallee.
2.The Judicial Magistrate,
Fast Track Court (Magistrate Level),
Ambattur.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
and
10.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
