Madras High Court
Benny Samraj vs Lalith Kumar on 15 April, 2025
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
Crl.R.C.No.3 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 15.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Criminal Revision Case No.3 of 2023
Benny Samraj
S/o.Joseph Simson ... Petitioner
..vs..
Lalith Kumar
S/o.Gokulchand ... Respondent
Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C.,
to call for the records and set aside the conviction and sentence passed by
the learned Judicial Magistrate, Maduranthakam passed in C.C.No.92 of
2015 dated 10.03.2020, which was confirmed by the learned Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu in C.A.No.1 of 2021 dated
27.10.2022.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.R.Ravi
For Respondent : Mr.S.Nambirajan
ORDER
This criminal revision petition has been filed challenging the
concurrent findings of the Courts below.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/05/2025 04:21:30 pm )
2. The respondent filed a private complaint under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'N.I.Act')
before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Maduranthakam in C.C.No.92 of
2015.
3. The case of the respondent/complainant, as per the complaint
filed before the trial Court is that, he was alleged to have given a sum of
Rs.2,10,000/- to the revision petitioner/accused on 08.09.2013, for
which, the petitioner issued a cheque. When the respondent presented
the cheque for collection, it was returned with an endorsement
"insufficient funds" through a return memo, dated 12.12.2013.
4. Therefore, the respondent issued a statutory notice on
13.12.2013, which was received by the petitioner on 16.12.2013. On
receipt of the statutory notice, the revision petitioner neither repaid the
amount within the statutory period, nor sent any reply denying the
liability. Hence, the respondent was constrained to file a complaint for
the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act.
5. In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant, he
examined himself as P.W.1 and four documents were marked as Ex.P1 to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/05/2025 04:21:30 pm )
Ex.P4. On the side of the revision petitioner/accused, he examined
himself as R.W.1 and no exhibits were marked.
6. The learned Judicial Magistrate, after trial, convicted the
revision petitioner/accused and sentenced him to undergo simple
imprisonment for one year and directed the petitioner/accused to pay a
sum of Rs.4,20,000/- as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C..
Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the
trial Court, the revision petitioner/accused filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.1
of 2021 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Chengalpattu, which was dismissed, confirming the conviction and
sentence imposed and compensation ordered by the trial Court. As
against the judgment of conviction and sentence confirmed by the
appellate Court, the revision petitioner/accused has filed the present
revision petition.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that the
trial Court without considering the materials available on record, passed
the judgment of conviction and sentence and also directed the petitioner
to deposit twice the cheque amount as compensation under Section 357
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/05/2025 04:21:30 pm )
Cr.P.C., to the complainant. He further submitted that pursuant to the
directions of this Court dated 15.03.2021 in Crl.O.P.No.5151 of 2021,
the petitioner had already deposited 20% of the cheque amount i.e.,
Rs.84,000/- to the complainant. After filing of the revision petition, the
petitioner was ready to pay the balance cheque amount of Rs.1,26,000/-
and he has also produced a copy of the Demand Draft before this Court.
He further submitted that as per the defence the disputed cheque amount
is only for a sum of Rs.2,10,000/-, but the trial Court directed the
petitioner to deposit twice the cheque amount i.e., Rs.4,20,000/-, which
was confirmed by the appellate Court, which warrants interference by
this Court.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent on the submissions
and perused the materials available on record.
9. On a reading of the entire materials, it is seen that though the
issuance of cheque is not denied however the legally enforceable debt is
not rebutted by the petitioner/accused, the trial Court, after appreciating
the entire materials, convicted and sentenced the petitioner for a period
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/05/2025 04:21:30 pm )
of one year and also directed the petitioner to deposit twice the amount of
the cheque as compensation. However, it is the contention of the
petitioner/accused that the complaint itself was filed for dishonour of
cheque for a sum of Rs.2,10,000/-, but, the trial Court directed the
petitioner to pay the compensation twice the amount of the cheque i.e.,
Rs.4,20,000/-. As per Section 138 of N.I.Act, if the issuance of cheque is
not denied, there is legal presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act
however, the legally enforceable debt is not rebutted in the manner
known to law, hence, such person shall be deemed to have committed an
offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be
punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or
with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with
both.
10. At this juncture, it is useful to extract Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which reads as follows :
''138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc.,
of funds in the account. Where any cheque drawn by a
person on an account maintained by him with a banker
for payment of any amount of money to another person
from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or
in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/05/2025 04:21:30 pm )
bank unpaid. either because of the amount of money
standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to
honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount
arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement
made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to
have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice.
to any other provision of this Act, be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year,
or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of
the cheque, or with both :
Provided that nothing contained in this section
shall apply unless-
(a) the cheque has been, presented to the bank
within a period of six months from the date on which it
is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever
is earlier;
(b) the payee or the holder in due course. of the
cheque as the case may be, makes a demand for the
payment of the said amount of money by giving a
notice, in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within
fifteen days of the receipt of information by him from
the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid;
and
(c)the drawer of such cheque fails to make the
payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as
the case may be, to the holder in due course of the
cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said
notice.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, "debt or
other liability" means a legally enforceable debt or other
liability.''
11. In the present case, the petitioner/ accused himself admitted
that the signature and execution of the cheque, which shows that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/05/2025 04:21:30 pm )
disputed cheque was issued to discharge the legally enforceable debt.
The main defence taken by the petitioner/accused that the cheque which
was dishonoured was only for a sum of Rs.2,10,000/- and he had already
deposited a sum of Rs.84,000/- before the Court below and handed
over a demand draft to the respondent for the balance amount of
Rs.1,26,000/-. Further, the respondent/complainant himself admitted that
he was alleged to have given a sum of Rs.2,10,000/- to the revision
petitioner/accused on 08.09.2013 and that the petitioner issued a cheque
for the said amount.
12. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances and also
considering the submissions of both sides, this Court finds that in order
to meet the ends of justice, the conviction of sentence imposed on the
petitioner is set aside and compensation amount ordered by the trial
Court is modified from Rs.4,20,000/- to that of the original cheque
amount i.e., Rs.2,10,000/-. Since the petitioner has already deposited a
sum of Rs.84,000/- before the Court below and handed over a demand
draft to the respondent for the balance amount of Rs.1,26,000/-, the
respondent is at liberty to withdraw the amount lying in the Court deposit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/05/2025 04:21:30 pm )
without filing any formal application.
13. With the above modification and directions, this revision
petition is disposed of.
15.04.2025
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No
ms
To
The Judicial Magistrate,
Maduranthakam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/05/2025 04:21:30 pm )
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
ms
15.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/05/2025 04:21:30 pm )
